Reviews

Many have commented on Life with glowing reviews. While I try to catch it every week, I find it an uneven show, especially in regards to the writing and to various characters coming and going. Who is a regular, who is not? Crews' ex-wife? Reese's father? The lawyer who eventually sprung Crews? Last year's captain (Robin Weigert, underused mostly), who made an interesting appearance this year? And on and on. The show feels as tentative as NBC's scheduling and marketing of it. Let's settle down, writers and network, por favor!

I hope NBC allows this program to evolve and develop its intriguing array of characters, played well by its cast, especially the innovative Damien Lewis, who brings nuance and passion to all his roles. We also need the writers to delve further into the background case of Crews'. There are shadowy characters who disappear further into the shadows because this plot point is treated as peripheral. It needs to be more in the center of the action.

Don't get me wrong…there is sharp dialogue galore and actors with the chops to get it across. But the show needs to come together better. I recall feeling similar re: the first season of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit…and, well, we know how fine that has turned out. Let's hope Life (great title, by the way) grows in the same way – and that NBC makes that investment.

I have to disagree with whomever opined that this documentary will be of interest only to Nick Drake fans. The cinematography, for one, should be a draw, it being on the level of, oh, Girl With a Pearl Earring or Dead Poet's Society. Also, the director's use of manipulation - superimposing images that move over a single cityscape, for example - is worth seeing, several times. And some of the lingering shots of English countryside are stunning and evoke a strong sense of Drake's music, which often delved into setting, using it as a character sometimes.

I do agree with those who regretted there was not enough info/anecdotes from the persons "interviewed" in the film, outside older sister & actress, Gabrielle. Where was John Martyn (and/or Beverly Martyn), who affectionately called Nick "The Guv'nor?" And what of musicians who played on Drake's first two LPs? Some of them are still with us...like Richard Thompson or Danny Thompson or John Cale, whose gorgeous keyboards in "Northern Sky" help that performance SOAR. And certainly Joe Boyd must be able to talk more about Nick than was shown in the film.

Nonetheless, I am grateful for having seen it - a few days ago actually, on TV (one of the Starz channels, I believe). I hope I come across it again one of these moons. As a fan since 1971 - when the first U.S. compilation (of the 1st two LPs) came out on Island - I am pleased and moved to hear more from this unique songwriter, singer, and guitarist. Does anyone REALLY write, sing, and play like him?

I was glad I was exercising at home while this mind-numbing piece of drek droned on and on and on…. Otherwise, I would have completely wasted an hour and a half of my life – 90 minutes incidentally that felt like 90 days.

I was reminded of some really bad low-budget sci-fi/horror flicks from the '50s, like The Beast With 50 Million Eyes. The Butcher contained some of the same, uh, qualities: no plot, bad writing, mostly annoying characters consistently blurting out stupid, senseless remarks. The director showed no ability for pacing (the film just sat there, congealing) or suspense or character development, i.e., there was NO pacing NO suspense NO interesting characters. As for the latter, it was hard to tell whether the actors & actresses could be any good, seeing how they were given so little of substance with which to work. As it stands on film, though, they either showed the emotions of a cardboard cut out or thrashed about in over-the-top fashion. And, yes, like some other reviewers, I too could not wait for several of the characters to meet their demise because they were SO annoying.

I cannot think of anything redeeming about this dawg. It could never be a guilty pleasure for me, like Wrong Turn, for example. The filmmakers had two left feet and empty heads – and they forced their characters to wander around in the same way, dazed and dumb, with nothing to say. I felt tortured. Don't let it happen to you. You have been forewarned.

A personal favorite in the film noir genre, I've seen it many times (especially now that I own a copy on DVD) – and have yet to tire of it. Mark Stevens strikes the perfect tone as the man behind the eight ball, a near-requirement for noir. Curiously, there is no femme fatale to play opposite him. Lucille Ball serves as his spunky, loyal, and creative secretary while Cathy Downs, as Mari Cathcart, might be considered a femme fatale – but to whom? Her less-than-forthcoming lover (acted as suave but slimy by Kurt Krueger) or her obsessively murderous husband (oh, Clifton Webb, another erudite role for him: "I detest the dawn…it's as if they rolled up the grass at night" – or something to that effect)? We can understand Webb/Cathcart's obsession since Ms. Downs, only 22 at the time, was quite stunning. There is a stylish, sensual long shot of her in her dressing gown that reveals her curves. Webb, naturally, is looking at her, a near voyeur. But then we do the same – total voyeurs.

The film is suitably dark in a number of ways. Much action takes place at night, whether it be at a carnival (a carefree time spoiled by the menace of a tail on Stevens/Ball, oddly enough in a white suit) or on the gritty streets of Chicago (some actual El shots were used). The photography has a nice, grimy look to it. It's not the crystal clear B&W you can find in other films. And Stevens' detective is, for almost the entire picture, in the dark, not knowing who or why someone is setting him up to take the fall for what? That, too, takes a while to discover.

I like that the film incorporates the world of art (galleries) so thoroughly. The contrast between Stevens' world and the money & jewels dripping off the art-conscious socialites is quite compelling. (I wonder if Dario Argento was aware of DC's use of the art world since he deploys it in several of his own thrillers, notably "Bird With a Crystal Plumage" and "Profundo Roso.") Stevens tried to bridge the gap by stepping out with Ball to a night club. But they can't even get through one dance… Hathaway keeps the pace restless, tense, and unnerving.

You owe it to yourself to catch this flick. It holds up as noir in specific and as fine film making in general – after sixty years!

I avoided this for years because it looked like a useless remake. However, I had forgotten that I thought The Fugitive was a useless remake of the TV series until I was dragged to it and found…a fine, suspenseful feature filled with a plethora of colorful characters. So, I should have been tuned in more to my own personal history, but so it goes….I now have watched U.S. Marshalls a number of times, and I have to say the two companion films match each other in quality.

The pacing is fast without being frenetic. The use of repetition, i.e., recurring motifs such as Kimball diving off a dam to safety & Sheridan swinging down to hop a commuter train, work well – though they could have been disastrous. The large cast is compelling down to the smallest roles (similar to The Fugitive in that regard). Jones, Snipes, and Downey all show range in their parts…Downey, as always, illustrates why he is one of the best of his generation. And some of the secondary roles shine, in particular Tom Wood as Deputy Marshall Noah Newman. He receives more screen time than in the predecessor; and he makes use of it well. He has one of "those acting moments" in a confrontation with Downey's character: his intense expression of simultaneous fear & anger is a plum bit of acting chops. Like other IMDb readers, I wonder what has happened with this good actor. No screen credits since 2000. Stage work? Left the biz? If the former, and he's in NYC, then we'll probably see him on a Law & Order episode one of these days!

I recently found a DVD with tons of extras on it – but I have not as yet delved into them. I look forward to doing that, as I do another viewing of the film.

...as in this is an outright turkey. There are so many things wrong with this movie that it's hard to choose what to criticize. First, let me say I had some hope in its early stages: the music was nice 'n' rough like early Motown, the energy was palpable, and it looked like some interesting characterizations might develop. Within the first half hour, all that potential had dissipated into lame ballads that sounded more 80s/90s than 60s (was Diane Warren around then?); the energy went flaccid with poor direction; and only Eddie Murphy as James Thunder Early managed to bring complexity, interest, and soul to his character. It would have been wise to expand Murphy's screen time so we viewers could be rewarded, at least a little, for showing up. Murphy's look when a male actor faintly tried to dissuade him from hitting the hard drugs was almost worth the price of admission. A performance worthy of an Oscar nomination.

For all the talent and time dedicated to singing, many of the vocalizations fell flat. I mostly blame the director who had almost all his singers start at a full-out volume instead of building their songs. Even the talented Miss Hudson suffered from this approach, thus causing substantial suffering to this listener's ears. And what was the waiting around forever to interject singing as part of the action/dialogue?!!? If a director is determined to use that fairly standard musical technique, then he/she better establish that approach much, much earlier than in Dreamgirls. Whadda bust, whadda waste.

Finally (though there is much more fodder for dissection), even if the storyline was very accurate in its Supremes depiction (as Mary Wilson says), it was rarely presented in an interesting way by the director. Condon seemed more interesting in placing Beyonce in as many different looks as possible. She did look good, too - which brings me to the only consistently wonderful part of this film: the look (not the camera work, which was ho-hum), but the make up and the costumes. Those artists nailed it, accurately depicting the stylings of the 60s & 70s. Going' out on a good word....