Reviews

I agree with other comments which point out that despite the title, the setting and a few borrowed character names, this is not Fitzgerald. No need to belabor that point.

Assuming it is a new story set in Depression-Era Hollywood, it's not bad. It's a pandemic streaming series "acting" like it's Fitzgerald. In that respect, it was true to the oft-repeated plot situation of someone not being what they appear to be.

The acting was generally very good, though it took me a few episodes before Rose stopped looking like Celia. And let me underscore the praise for Kelsey Grammer, who demonstrated that he is an actor and not just a comedian. The scene with Sally in her trailer--just watch his face. As a comedian, he would be commenting with his face on the absurdity of that scene. Here he plays it straight and true to character.

I could have done without most of what was shown in the final episode. We could have done without the "surprise" of persons who we thought were dead were actually not. The climax of this series occurs in the eighth episode, and if anything, this final episode should have devoted itself to resolving the remaining subplots, rather than starting something new. Honestly, this seemed to me that the producers had run out of script to fill out all contracted episodes and so consequently someone had to dream up this episode to meet the contractual obligations. This episode was a huge disappointment for me.

The film is not an amateur job and is not "so bad it's good." It's just bad. I pause after one-third of the running time, and the adventurers are STILL not into the hole. We've had a lot of backstory not found in the book or the decent 50's film, so what you may recall from those earlier works--forget it. The film begins in San Francisco, and goes downhill from there, even without having a hole to go down. The other comments indicate that it does not get better, and I can take those comments to heart if I decide to bail on the whole project. I see this film was released the same year as another misbegotten version of this story. I did see that Brendan Fraser opus and hated it. I have an image of Jules Verne spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken. Who could go wrong with the terrific story Verne wrote?

I don't think that this film or any the others in this collection are "staged." If staging were going on, we'd have a lot more spectacular developments, such as in Blair Witch. I think the investigators, producers, and haunting victims are sincere. I don't say I necessarily believe something supernatural is occurring. Nor do I deny it. Perhaps if I did believe, the show would have made more of an effect on me. So I think the ultimate impression the show will make on the viewer will depend so much on what the viewer brings to it. The various phenomena being investigated are interesting, and I watched with the idea of perhaps I could furnish a non-metaphysical explanation. The film held my interest. But if you militantly disbelieve, you should find alternate entertainment.

I saw this film when it aired on CBS some 50+ years ago. I had read the script of the play, and in the 70's I saw productions of Rabe's two other plays in his Trilogy, namely Pavlo Hummel and Streamers. Now I find this video on YouTube and I watched it for a second time.

I think the script would have benefited from a more realistic presentation, which would have allowed the lines to furnish the distorted reality rather than attempting to gild the lily. Regardless, this video presents the play as a clear product of its time, and the production now is mainly of historic interest, including the controversy which surrounded its airing on television. Anne Jackson appeared in so few films that seeing her in this production was a treat.

Maybe there is a viewer who will watch this production, having absolutely no familiarity with Elia Kazan's film. If you have seen the earlier film, you may have difficulty in evaluating this version without reference to the earlier film. I personally think that a more gifted director would have been able to draw from this cast a more satisfying show. The credits indicate that Tennessee Williams wrote the teleplay, so he would have been around to help a talented director get the most from the cast. Too often it seemed to me that the cast was merely reciting the lines. And Treat should have avoided a "Southern" accent: Blanche, yes; Stanley, no. He would have profited from a director who might have focused on the animal in Stanley, and not simply the pig.

I confess I did not read The Iliad, which may have been a better telling of this story. However, this film was interesting if not compelling. The production values are huge--thousands of extras, costuming, sets, non-CGI effects. The acting (mostly) is fine, though the Paris-Helen chemistry is not as heated as might justify the story. It never rises to the level where you might think it justifies the action, so we are left with the question "Was all this really worth it?"

"Troy" is obviously the same story, but is not a remake. Viewing both films together gives the viewer a better perspective not only on the story but also on film making then-and-now.

And I wonder at the orgy around the Trojan Horse. Seems remarkably similar to the Golden Calf segment in The Ten Commandments. I am not sure if the ending would constitute a spoiler, so I simply will note this was during the Production Code which dictated that adulterers had to suffer for their transgressions. Evidently the Code Office recognized pagan marriages.

I had fond memories of having seen this film on its release in 1961, when I would have been about 9 years old. It is a Spanish-Italian co-production with an American headliner (here, Rory Calhoun). This seems to be a start of a developing trend such as the later casting of Guy Madison and Clint Eastwood.

The production values are fine--this does not appear to be a cheap, hastily made film. The excellent art direction and choreography (in the banquet scenes) are first rate. However, I found the film to be incredibly gory, much more than I recalled. All such period pieces have such elements. A film in which an action hero is tied up and menaced is commonplace. But this film had repeated and extended scenes of torture. Such as one in which captives were tortured by having acid dropped on them. Perhaps it is merely a sign of changing tastes and sensitivities.

I was basically unfamiliar with the factual story behind this, and the apparently disrespectful approach taken by the media at the time. This documentary series had an amazing tone--one of respect. The series did not start by passing judgment through assuming an easy conclusion about the events. Instead, the series set out the "backstory" of Do and Ti and what they were looking for, and how they planned to accomplish their dream. The viewer was left to make an independent conclusion as to whether the basis for this was religion, science fiction, fantasy, mental illness or malice. I detected no tone (or desire) in the film makers to laugh, sneer or feel superior.

Speaking only for myself by the end of the series, I found myself saddened by the non-arrival of what the group (won't call them a cult) had been waiting for. An absolutely remarkable series.

This is a 2002 made-for-Hallmark Christmas movie. Starting from that fact, this (for me) was a totally enjoyable film which I never knew existed until today. I work from home and often put on Christmas films and music for background noise. But when I noticed this one I actually watched. It's not inspired, nor is it an instant classic. Yes, the plot is contrived, but so are the plots of the vast majority of Christmas films.

Criticizing the casting in something like this seems overkill to me. The quality of this film is far superior to the shoestring-budget, no name, mass produced seasonal romances now overrunning the streaming services. This film is a cut above.

I gave this movie an extra star for the amazement generated by wondering how it got to be so bad. It's possible to put this into the "so bad it's good" category. George Zucco turns up from being the Mummy's caretaker to take a similar position with BaLu, which as we know is the last 2/3 of Bah BaLu. If you follow the geography (with helpful map) at the beginning of the film, you might wonder how any mermaids swam that far upstream, much less the singing mailman.

Perhaps the best way to approach this is with the mindset of a child in the first decade of life--just enjoy the action and the antics, and not worry about the excuse for it all.

Knowing that Roger Corman may have had something to do with this truly bad film does not increase my regard for it. The best acting on display here comes from Duke, the German Shepherd. The best I can say for the film is that it was probably aimed at a target audience of ten-year-olds. It is "scary" in about the same way that the ludicrous "Killer Shrews" was scary. An example: the scene involving Mom, Duke and a shotgun. What was that all about? In prior scenes, Mom treated Duke like a dog. And for this scene, she starts out being concerned for Duke's well being, and then pulls a gun on him. And then there's the resident mute, no one knows his name, or why he is there. He's the one who climbs palm trees to spy on people. I don't begrudge anyone having a guilty pleasure. Go right ahead and love the film for what is is, or more likely what it isn't. One thing it isn't, is good.

This "movie" is a total mess. It has about zero chills. It starts with a ritual human sacrifice (unrelated to the plot) which basically forfeits any sympathy or identification with the main character. The juvenile is charmless and it is nearly impossible to have any empathy for him. Or indeed for anyone in this godforsaken story. The "mood" which develops (perhaps intentionally) is humorous--jokes being made by the "monsters" which are ill-conceived and worse yet, not funny. What did it for me was the cow scene. I won't spoil it, out of habit, but that doesn't mean there is something to spoil. Just awful.

The film has some rather grisly sights, but they are more inanimate gross-outs than any real action. Early on, there is an interminable scene which slowly pans through an area with a lot of gore on display. The scene lasts minutes when about 15 seconds would have sufficed. And this is after Donald Pleasance chews the scenery in near-unimaginable ways. For example, what is the point in being gratuitously insulting when interviewing about a missing person? Bad script, and I guess Donald was allowed to give a bad performance, because the director (if there was one) allowed him free range. I am wary of old films which have had three titles, because it suggests the distributors just changed the name for another release to drive-ins. This film is truly awful, and there's not much that Christopher Lee can do to redeem it.

Try to make a list of the wonderful bits here: Karloff answering the door (OMG), Ernest Thesiger playing "Mr. Femm," his line about his sister arranging the flowers as he pitches them into the fire. This hilarious exercise in high camp is vintage James Whale, but without the basic horror of The Invisible Man and the Frankenstein films. Here is a very spooky setting (the old dark house), but only the most impressionable viewer could be frightened by this. Perhaps when the film was released in 1932, it may have scared its audience. Instead, I find it completely enjoyable and astonishingly well-made.

I put my comment on this series here, in memory of Sian Phillips. Her portrayal of Livia in this series defined the remainder of her career. Smiling malevolence was never better embodied on the screen. I saw this series when it first aired on PBS nearly fifty years ago, one episode per week. Over the course of several weeks, we came to hate Livia as the other characters met with premature death so often. In this episode, there is an absolutely astonishing scene between Livia and Claudius in which Livia makes a request and Claudius asks a question. I won't spoil it by saying anything more than the scene is so quiet and understated. No scenery chewing, no performance given in pursuit of an award. Yet it embodies what is so fascinating about this series.

I have had the pleasure of working with theatrical designers and artists, including scenic designers, special effects, costume designers and sound technicians. On occasion I was connected with shows which were "taken on the road." I can't describe how much I enjoyed this film, even after several viewings. This film should dispel forever the notion that artists and show people cannot contribute to the war effort. I especially enjoyed the remark by one artist that he spent his spare time doing watercolors. And there is one drawing of French farmers and a tank--I won't spoil it. Totally priceless.

This period entry in the seventies "disaster" blockbusters is worth watching at least for its cast list. I mean, Burt Lancaster, O. J. Simpson, Ava Gardner, Sophia Loren and . . . Alida Valli, to name a small fraction. Do this exercise: think of the best three films each cast member did in his/her lifetime. Then find and watch those films again. The point is that the cast was (mostly) outstanding.

The plot is not any more strained and absurd than other disaster films, and it does sporadically build up a sense of suspense. It can be fun if you approach it with lowered expectations. Quality cinema it is not.

This episode was difficult to follow (for a murder mystery) because the writing here follows a theme raised in the plot: that books (such as novels) are obsolete and instead we are merely given information. In this episode there were very few occurrences we watched, and just endless talk. Very witty talk, no doubt, but sarcastic zingers work better in a sit com and not a murder mystery. Even a "functional illiterate" was given over to happy talk. The yakking became interminable. In fact, there was so much patter that I became nostalgic for the days of the old Inspector Morse, who said little, and when he did, he said it slowly. I've seen most of the Inspector Lewis series before, and I am grateful this episode was an aberration.

I watched this film for the first time today, having avoided it since its release. Mailer wrote the book, Janet Leigh is in it, so can it REALLY be as bad as all that? Oh gee . . . Eleanor Parker opens the "action" with a performance that beggars description. She acts demented, if not possessed. In the context of the film, it is impossible to believe she did not manifest bizarre behavior, such that suicide would be deemed unthinkable. Then there's the unexpected involvement of the mob boss as the film veers away from a police procedural into film noir. And then comes the whole religious prohibition against abortion and suicide, but by that point . . . Who cares? This is not one of those films which are so bad they are good. This is just bad.

Obviously an agenda powers the comments for this film. What absolutely glowing reviews, which so many found helpful. There are unquestionably some good lines in this 2+ hour film, and the historic events and the "free state" should not be overlooked or forgotten. My personal belief on the genesis of the Civil War is that it was basically propelled by politicians and the moneyed class manipulating the general population and voters who were perhaps more swayed by slogans and chest-beating than by a rational analysis of the situation and an attempt to find an alternative to war. This film would have benefited greatly from the elimination of the miscegenation prosecution, and the pruning of several scenes which went on just too long. The ultimate result was tiring rather than inspiring.

I have to agree that the attempt to think outside the box in this episode was not entirely successful. I think that perhaps when "Terminus" was filmed, it was thought likely to be the final Endeavour episode, given its title and Morse's destination at the end.

Perhaps it was just me, but I thought that the murder mystery element here was extremely far-fetched (much more so than usual), and mostly incredible. The haunted house setting was very atmospheric, but did not translate into a satisfying plot. The convenient generated electricity supply was unlikely, but probably was necessary. And for 1970-71, I'd have though a British metropolitan transit line would have a more reliable way of tracking its buses during bad weather.

It's all a part of literary license, I guess. I did notice a line at the end, about "we will soon have a Thaw."

Andy Griffith's performance here is easily the equal of Oscar winning performances (Broderick Crawford comes to mind), yet the film and the performance were totally ignored by the Academy. Not even a nomination, and the film itself was a flop, meaning that few people saw it other than devoted film-goers. Andy Griffith went on to star in No Time For Sergeants, on Broadway and then on film, which were popular successes. I think that the timing of Griffith's career allowed us to have this true masterpiece. This was his first film--before he had any "image" to preserve. Perhaps he thought he was a failure in this film, which motivated a desire to avoid similar unsympathetic roles. The Mayberry shows established and cemented his image as a wholesome, family-oriented, small town man, who'd never have an unchaste thought about any woman (kind of an opposite to Lonesome Rhodes). After Mayberry, a film role such as Lonesome would have been impossible.

I didn't realize this film existed until I was in college in the 70s. Until then, I never knew Andy Griffith as a kind of corny, old-school aw shucks kind of guy. This film came before all that.

Regardless of subtext so thick you could slice it, I totally love this film. About the subtext, listen to the very first dialog in the film--women at a bar remarking about how the five men at another table don't seem interested in the women. Hmmm. And that's just the start. Seems like the alien invasion is limited to one gender. Who are prone to going out at night without their wives. And the lack of interest in females goes much deeper. I don't think this subtext was intentional, since the film was made in a much more innocent time. (I try to convince myself that casting Tom Tryon was also just a coincidence.) It just adds another dimension to a very fun film.

Of this film's 60 minutes, about 30 of those are devoted to.a third-rate romantic triangle, in which you can't wait for the monsters to attack. I guess the filmmakers thought that if you'd had enough, you wouldn't be too critical of how they were dispatched. Undoubtedly the film was made mostly for a drive-in audience, featuring a title that undoubtedly was more frightening on the drive-in marquee than was ultimately was shown on the drive-in screen. I am sure this film was very frightening to six-year-olds. I recall that when I was that age, the kind of monster film which scared me most was the "Creature" films set in a swamp or river delta. So I didn't absolutely hate this film, which suffered more from a low budget than a lack of imagination. But that's not a recommendation.