Reviews

I know I've seen this story numerous times on screen, in TV series, and probably in the mini-series format as well. And there's no new ground broken here. We all know the story inside out. Hell, most of us have lived it, some of us several times.

There's a slowdown in the economy, business has to cut back, employees are unprepared for the hard times that are thrust upon them and react in very predictable, utterly commonplace manner. The actors sleep walk through their respective rolls, there's anger, marital troubles, a suicide, and then a modicum of redemption. Ho hum. Nothing new here.

zzzzzzzzzzzz...

I can't for the life of me figure out why this movie was made. I mean, other than to pay some bills, maybe.

The story is so horrifically uneven, the characters so undeveloped - as is the entire plot - that I can't believe anybody much gave a damn when they were making this tripe.

The movie's namesake - and center of attention - is about as unlikeable and ugly as a leading man can be. He's physically and mentally as repellant as is possible for one human. Arrogant, uncaring, selfish and self-centered, and fat and homely to boot, and he never improves - or makes any attempt to - throughout the show. Why are we supposed to care about him or his ugly, self-indulgent excesses? We're never given the slightest reason to sympathize or even develop a passing interest in his life.

And yet, despite all his remarkable flaws, Barney manages to woo and win the girl of his dreams - nevermind the fact that he's already betrayed one wife and driven another to suicide (which was a completely throw-away plot line itself). We're never given the slightest clue what a drop-dead gorgeous woman with a wonderful disposition sees in the disgusting little creep that Barney is.

The story drags on for awhile, Barney's life ultimately disintegrates and then fades away entirely, with no more significance than any of the other non-events of the little man's life.

Overall, pointless and annoying. I didn't get it...

I loved the overall look of this movie. The sets and set dressing, costumes, and props were obviously lavished with a lot of care. And the cinematography is just beautiful. The story, on the other hand, is a tad weak.

There's no new ground broken in the show. It's a really basic love story with a rather poorly written villain.

The evil circus owner is so uneven that I had a real difficult time believing his character at all. He's insufferably mean one minute and the sweetest guy in the world the next. Caring and sensitive while being heartless and cruel, with little or no reason for such wild swings. And the idea that one could get away with murder simply because they own a circus, I found a little hard to accept as well.

Overall, it an attractive looking film with a passable story, just don't expect any depth, 'cause there just ain't any...

Having just seen Dr. Zhivago again after about 40 years, I have to say, it hasn't aged well.

The sets are wonderful, the make-up not so much, and the story just drags. Nevermind that the actions of most all the characters are often implausible at best, but the story never really goes anywhere. Though I've never read it, I'm sure there must have been some actual content in the book that the movie entirely misses.

Here you have your basic star-crossed lovers (with a sensitive, caring, poet who dearly loves his wife but nonetheless takes every opportunity to step out on her) who - I guess - are really wonderful people ('cause, afterall, they're really attractive, and that's what makes a "good" person, right?) who seem to think nothing of betraying their spouses at the drop of a hat. And, oh yeah, there's a revolution sweeping the country, but that's only of moderate importance.

Oh, and even though they are living in utter deprivation and grinding poverty, the mistress ALWAYS manages to look as if she's just stepped out of a salon with a fresh facial and hairdo. And then the ultimate cornball scene of Yuri stumbling down the street in a vain attempt to reconnect with his beloved mistress. The topper to a basically empty and meandering (and LOOOOOONG) soap opera.

Some wonderful sets and props, visually stunning, but content is really wanting...

Here's a show with all the right ingredients, talented cast, outstanding sets, and a capable director, but it just falls flat.

I suspect because it was a wartime picture that they just didn't spend the time to make a decent film. The plot is about as thin as tissue and most everyone's actions would best be described as "incongruous". There's simply no logic to the way any of the characters behave.

The main character is supposed to be a devilish playboy, though we have scant evidence of that. The wife loves him in spite of that flaw, but leaves without warning anyway. The wife's parents quarrel incessantly over the most trivial of matters - again with no apparent cause. The money flows like wine throughout the show, but with little explanation of where it comes from. And when the much beloved wife dies - totally unexpectedly and with no real cause given - the husband and the rest of the family carry on with hardly even of mention of her passing. And even after the rich playboy husband dies, he has a most amicable conversation with the devil himself, who conducts himself with the utmost graciousness and courtesy.

It just struck me as a really odd, ill-thought-through, hurried production. And almost immediately forgettable.

Being a die-hard Jeff Bridges fan I wanted this movie to be great, or at least really entertaining. Unfortunately, it was neither.

Remarkably little happens in the movie. Bridges' character gets repellently drunk, throws up, loses a child at the mall and then has a "come to Jesus" moment and sobers up. Other than that, it's some pretty well-worn cowboy/singer fare and really mundane, ordinary life sort of stuff. It seemed much more suited for the "Hallmark" cable channel than the big screen.

Bridges was pretty good in an undemanding roll. The rest of the movie just didn't have any substance. Overall, I'd call it a "miss"...

A very enjoyable movie, though it takes considerable liberties with the truth (but then, nothing unusual about that).

I really liked the way that the film lead you into the increasingly bizarre world of Nash's brain without letting on what was or was not real. You had to sort out for yourself what was reality, just as Nash must have had to. And you soon develop a connection to the main character, seeing the world through his eyes.

But then the director gets in touch with his inner "Opie" and takes you back to Mayberry. Lots of saccharine sentiments and an ending that Aunt Bee would've been proud of (though Jennifer Connelly's make-up was about as unconvincing as any I've ever seen).

Still, it was an entertaining and very watchable show. It just could've been a whole bunch better if the makers weren't so (seemingly) fixated on a Hallmark Hall of Fame production.

One wonders why a movie this full of plot-holes was even made. I guess even movie-makers have bills to pay from time to time. Maybe that's it. I can't think of another reason.

The plot goes way beyond improbable and ventures into outright impossibility. I guess we can accept that there's amoral jerks in the world that would allow inmates to be summarily executed and that would be eager to perform said executions even, themselves. But how do you explain a prison revolt where every prisoner - right down to the very baddest and meanest and demented of the lot - all fall in line, in lockstep, behind a guy they barely know? Or, how did they procure the mountain of incendiary material and weapons - including an enormous, complex, midieval trebuchet (that was constructed without ANYONE noticing, and stored away until the appointed moment likewise), and organize a well-orchestrated assault without any of the prison personnel getting wise to what was going on?

Most of the rest of the plot was just basic schmaltzy, dime store philosophy and overacting. Redford was likable enough (as always), Tony Soprano was about as one-dimensional as it's possible to be (I think they could have substituted a cardboard cut-out will equal effect). And then they sum it all up in the end with an utterly incongruous and overdone fit of jingoism.

The net result is a movie well worth avoiding. It's just too stupid.

I find most of Eastwood's films since his "Spaghetti Western" days get rave reviews, despite the fact that they're mostly pretty mediocre fare, and this one's no exception.

The basic storyline is familiar enough, if maybe having a few concessions to 21st century culture. But the litany of caricatures instead of more rounded-out rolls just annoys the hell out of me. Is there any group of people that are as "all evil all the time" as Walt's neighborhood gang? Or anyone as condescending and clueless as his son and daughter-in-law? And then Walt himself is horrendously uneven in his demeanor. He's gruff and bigoted one minute, and then drops over to the neighbor's house for a meal and stays on even after numerous gaffs and confrontations and even though the lady of the house seems to hate his guts. He fluctuates between unbelievably hateful and defensive to "old softy" without little reason or predictability. The overall impression being not very credible. He's obviously a character in a movie, and the script takes every opportunity to remind us of that.

Then after Walt and "Toad" assume the traditional mentor/lackey relationship mode, Walt starts out by teaching Toad to "talk like a man" with absolutely stupid, even silly results. I'm amazed that that whole bit didn't end up on the cutting room floor. I guess they needed some filler material. Anyway, that bit was lame.

And then to think that a drive-by shooting (with full-automatic weapons no less) and the savage, brutal rape and beating of a young girl wouldn't result in any arrests, but somehow the murder of a white guy would convince the neighbors to all come forward to accuse the gang, well, it strains credulity yet again. And further, somehow the fact that Walt was not really armed would seal the gang's fate, but gunning him down (again with full-auto weapons) would somehow have been justified if Walt HAD been carrying a gun, again just comes off as utterly irrational. Maybe the idea of an "honest" gunfight worked in the old westerns, but it doesn't in the real world. Again, silliness.

While I enjoyed much of Walt's curmudgeonly, in-your-face, brutal honesty, the over-the-top excesses worked against every really suspending your disbelief to get into the movie. I wish Mr. Eastwood would've toned down the extremes a little in all the characters and had a little bit better script to work with. Like "The Gauntlet" or "High Plains Drifter" or so much of his other work, a little restraint would've made SUCH a better movie...

Stupid me, I didn't even notice who the director was before I sat down to watch this really peculiar film.

With the possible exception of the first segment, the film - despite what the storyline is saying - is entirely in the here and now. A fantasy of revenge played out amid - not just gratuitous - but completely surreal, graphic, sickening violence. The carnage is so over-the-top that it quickly doesn't even garner a raised eyebrow, it becomes simply wallpaper behind a really vapid, simple fairytale. And the sets and costumes, though I guess not entirely inappropriate for WWII, never feel like anything more than just what they are - sets and costumes. The ambiance being much more akin to gangsta rap than Glen Miller. "Forties" it definitely is NOT.

Though I initially was interested in the story, it devolved quickly into a nonsensical race to the bottom in trying to outdo itself for sheer in-your-face, amoral brutality. Is this Tarrantino thinks passes for entertainment? God, I can't imagine what a twisted, jaded, socio-pathological mind can produce such disgusting, visually repellent images.

And then for a finale, QT decides to completely rewrite history, and two members of a ragtag troop of misfits - with the help of a theatre owner and her projectionist - defeat the entire German high command. No armies required, TYVM. What a joke.

In the end I found myself somewhat ashamed for having sat and watched this. It says far more about who we are today in 2010 America, than it ever would about WWII. And what it says is something less than complimentary.

I can't for the life of me figure out why this movie has such staying power. Alan Ladd as a macho, fighter/gunslinger is enough of a stretch to begin with, add in an about as overused a western plot as one could imagine, some corny dialog, a few one-dimensional characters, and some rather wooden acting and you've got "Shane".

The diminutive Mr. Ladd is almost laughable as he fights with men half-again his size but manages to whip whole barrooms full of them quite handily, and then to see him in a duo-fighting scene with Mr. Heflin and both yucking it up as they beat the mean cowboys senseless with axe handles is a bit incongruous to say the least.

The characters are straight out of a pulp magazine or comic book. The big, bad, meany rancher fights the newcomer farmers. Geeze, can it get any lamer than that? And then there's the basic message of the movie, which is, essentially, when all else fails, there's nothing like violence to solve any problem. And if the problem STILL persists, well just escalate to wholesale killing, that'll surely do it.

And then, when the problems are really pretty much handled, well, just ride off into the sunset, even though everybody yearns for you to stay, and you yourself would love to. NO, you've got to ride off because you're a gunslinger and there's no changing that, no matter how much you want to.

Just plain corny. It was fine for Saturday matinees when you were a kid I guess, but it hasn't aged well at all.

Despite the cast and crew, this is just another movie. There's a leading man, a leading lady, and a whole cast of those adorable, quirky characters. Feh...

Against my better judgement I thought I'd take a chance on this one for Christmas evening, but was sorely disappointed. I thought Hanks did an adequate job of portraying an eastern European lost in the bureaucracy of immigration paperwork. But the story was sort of ill-conceived, Walt Disneyesque, made-for-T.V. tripe.

The story - or what there is of one - is overly contrived. It's studded with one-dimensional, cardboard cut-out characters (Tucci's downright irrational, "mean-old-airport-security-guy" in particular), and leaves enough loose ends to make you wonder if the story is over at all. What happens to the brave Gupta?, the disobedient security staff?, the utterly unbelievable "I just can't find a decent man, even though I'm drop-dead gorgeous" flight attendant? Why doesn't the head security guy know what's in Hanks' peanut can? I guess it doesn't matter. Hanks got his autograph, so all's right with the world now.

Half-baked...