Reviews

I reckon I ain't the best movie reviewer around. Too many go into too much detail, as if they're hoping to get recognized and hired to do it professionally. If you've read two, you already know more than I could tell you, so I'll get to the point: There were scenes in the first half that are among the most intriguing I've ever witnessed. The whole business of building the big the oil derrick, getting the gusher, and the resulting fire at sunset in the desert were mesmerizing. The evil sounding music from the beginning to this scene worked brilliantly. Daniel D. Lewis is fantastic as the manic man striving to build an empire, and that crazy preacher kid is fun to watch as well. Like many, I found the ending disappointing, and in general, Daniel's descent into paranoid madness was a bit sad. If you've ever seen Italo-American masterpiece 1900, you may sense some similarities, but there I think it is more gripping. If you're a film buff, you must see this movie.

I watched this film on pay per view mainly because I remember that day so well. It's hard for me to say exactly why, but I don't think the film quite works. Somehow the character development didn't click for me. The film was a bit slow moving, and I didn't like the occasional surrealistic asides showing him freaking out, descending into madness.

Technically, there were many flaws. They didn't try very hard to get the period right, other than obvious things like his haircut, car, and the 1980 presidential campaign. Also, I recall reading that part of Chapman's motive was that he was a rigid Christian, and he still smarted from Lennon's offending of the faith way back in the 60s. I think he had been some sort of youth counselor as well.

Overall, there was too much of an amateurishness to the production for me to recommend.

OK, the acting was good, the story interesting, but the filming joined a disturbing trend of movies like "Broken Flowers" and "Open Water" that inexplicably seem to have been filmed by high school students. The sound was poor, the color awful, and the jerkiness of the hand held camera nearly gave me a headache. There were dozens, if not hundreds of great thrillers and mysteries filmed in the 40s, 50s, and even 60s with crisp, clean sound, sharp focus, and good old stationary cameras. Why now is it cool to make your audience squint, strain, and reach for aspirin? It must be some nod to the generation reared on pop music videos. *spoilers* I didn't like the ending. If a gang of assassins comes after me and I have a gun, I'm going to be using it ala John Wayne. There were some good aspects. There was good tension between the lead characters. Rachel Weisz was great throughout. But I'd like to see the whole thing trashed and re-shot by Alfred Hitchcock.

My wife and I just got home from seeing this movie. She absolutely hated it. I thought it was OK, but with some problems. First of all, you could say this is "Lost in Translation II", because Bill Murray shows few facial expressions or emotion. It worked once, but didn't quite this time around. People are going to forget that he's been one of the most over the top comedians around. There were some good moments, and the premise is interesting, but I think it should have gone to a different director. Some of the early scenes are so dark and fuzzy as to be downright unprofessional. It picked up a bit in the second half, but I can't recommend it. It plays a little like "Sideways", and should have been directed by the same person.

Skip this movie and see the 1965 original instead. I just rented it and was very disappointed. Another reviewer here said it best, it's been dumbed down. It plays like an MTV video while the original is like going to a Broadway play. The party 60s music is inappropriate, the out of sync flashbacks confusing, and the character development has gaping holes. And when will all this computer animation cease? It doesn't look real. The ending is straight out of Indiana Jones, whereas the original is more exciting by playing up the real human drama of the situation. Even the Four Weddings and a Funeral pictures at the end seemed to lack sincerity and grit. I think the problem is mostly with the directing and producing. Some of the acting and photography is good.

If you like the theater, you will like this movie. That it runs like a play I think enhances it. The somewhat artificial dialog is so clever, and the painted skyline (it changes every few minutes) of the city is so evocative of a summer night, that I just love it. 1948 slang like, "oh, you're the end", "that's queer", and "he's a little tight" are as quaint now as something from Shakespeare. I like when Jimmy Stewart is verbally painting his murder hypothesis, and the camera moves around the room to follow his words. One tiny problem - what happened to the gash on Phillip's hand he got from nervousness and a champagne glass? He was getting his palm read and playing the piano a minute later. Other than that, it is fun to absorb all the attention-to-detail given by Hitchcock. This movie is a wonderful mood piece. It's one of my favorite films.

P.S. About the probable homosexual relationship between the killers, Brandon and Phillip. I was slow to pick up on it, but my wife and other reviewers said it was obvious. Hitch covers his tracks with one quick comment: Brandon states that Janet dated him before the victim David. Brandon lets out a sexual sounding exhale after the last guest leaves and he thinks he's in the clear. The cigarette right after the murder also evokes the stereotypical smoke after sex.

I saw the last 3/4 of this movie twice a while back on cable. It is interesting to read the other comments, especially from those who hated it. I found the movie absolutely gripping. I couldn't stop watching it. I hated the torturers so much that I wanted to jump into the screen and strangle them. This may be the point: you can have a great movie about repulsive things. It is very frustrating to watch, but that was intended. The two near escapes were as tense as any scene I've watched anywhere. I think the final verdict is that this is a must see unless you're overly sensitive. This idea can be applied to a film such as Schindler's List, repulsive in many parts, but still a great piece of art.

I rented this movie because not too long ago I visited Vienna, and am very interested it its time as a cultural heavyweight in the decades leading up to World War I. I loved seeing street scenes and buildings that I recognized, and I knew enough about the artists portrayed to keep my interest up. But as other reviewers here have said, there was something missing from the screenplay. The story was too matter of fact. It was just like a simple diary. After reading other reviews here, the movie "Reds" [Diane Keaton, Warren Beatty] came to mind. They are similar films, but Reds has infinitely better writing, and is therefore far more compelling. Perhaps this film should have been made as a documentary.

I wasn't going to bother, but a recent reviewer said this film was terrible. I saw it when it first came out with my girlfriend at the time, and we talked of little else for days. I've seen it a couple of times since on TV, and still love it. It's a great sweeping epic, the dialogue and acting are top of the line, and the photography is superb also. I like the author Jerzy Kosinsky as Zinoviev. He's not much of an actor, but that makes him seem more real. His lines about the private life being dead and that you can never come back to this point in history are classics. When Reed answers him saying, "You don't rewrite what I write." just as a bomb explodes behind him shows the madness and chaos of the Russian Civil war. 10 out of 10.

I can't add much, but I want to echo the comments of the person below. I thought this was the coolest show ever when I was 12, and was disappointed when it was canceled. There was a drum rhythm that was played during each tense scene that I still play in my mind nearly 40 years later. And like the person below, I can't find anybody who remembers it! I liked the way the star answered when anybody asked his name: "Cat, T. Hewitt Edward Cat." That's all I can remember, other than how cool he was with his black turtleneck sliding down wires from one building to the next. How come I never see this on late night cable? I'm getting sick of the Munsters and Leave it to Beaver.

I loved the way this film captured the essence of the 60s. Some people today think the 60s was the decade of long hair and flower power, but for the masses, that was really the 70s. The 60s, and most passengers on the ill-fated train car, were represented by tight clothes, businessmen who still wore hats and nondescript overcoats, and young women with straight, glossy hair. The two thugs who take over the train look like they might have come from a Beatles concert. I liked the realistic gritty look of the interior of the streetcar, with litter on the floor, and a design that seemed to come from about World War I. The outdoor scenes of the train passing by are very grainy, and in their black and white simplicity create an appropriate feel.

The movie is a bit heavy handed, though, in its morality lesson. It's as if the screenwriter had a framed copy of the German missive on the Nazi takeover above his desk: "First they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak out because I was not a Jew, then they came for the communists, but I didn't speak out because....." I simply can't believe that so many people could be so cowardly. The mod guy who freezes up while a bully strokes his girlfriend's hair is too much. And the fact that the bullies essentially insult everyone on the car in turn while everyone looks away doesn't wash either. You know you're next, so why not try to put a stop to it now? The black guy who was so eager to punch a white could have pummeled them both as soon as they let his wife/hostage go. Where did all his anger go? And the gay guy who tried to get off meekly returned when the weaker of the two bullies merely said, "go to your room". He was inches from freedom, and was much larger than Martin Sheen's character.

This movie is worth seeing for its cast alone. It's fun to see such a young Beau Bridges, and to see TV's Ed McMahon in a serious role. Virtually every cast member was known to me, if only as a familiar face from countless other movies from the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

Oh, and I burst out laughing at a scene which probably was originally intended to be very poignant and thought provoking. Blame my recent addiction to Dave Chapelle's comedy. When the police finally come and see the carnage, they immediately try to cuff the black guy, without asking any questions.

With its flaws noted, I recommend this movie as a great time capsule of the 60s, and a study of how cowardice can lead to worse and worse situations.

This movie is a mix of insufferably bad corn, and really cool and unusual innovation. Some of the dialog and plot twists are amongst the worst ever, but one song and dance scene (the 'drinking' song) is one of the best ever. At first, I hated the comic relief guy. He has a Swedish accent and is a cornball vaudevillian, but he slowly grew on me. He's a little like Joe E. Brown. Maybe Joe was copying him. Some of the futuristic sets and one airplane scene are clever.

The basic idea is that in the distant future, 1980, people have numbers instead of names, and the state decides whom you can marry. So one rejected guy flies to Mars to increase his stature. Some of the costumes on Mars are pretty cool.

So grit your teeth during the stupid parts, and you'll be rewarded with an unusual gem.