Reviews

44 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
John and Mary (1969)
What happened?
29 November 2004
It had everything going for it, the hottest young stars of the late sixties, Dustin Hoffman and Mia Farrow, fresh from the successes of the Graduate and Rosemary's Baby. The director had just made the huge hit Bullit and the hopes were very high, the two stars were on the cover of Time magazine!

It was set in swinging New York, nice photography, cool apartments and clothes, it had to be a hit, right?

What went wrong?????? The script, I suppose. They hadn't considered that it had to say something. Instead we are treated to lots of meaningful looks from the leads. Though, they are good looking....

Is it a comedy? Hard to tell, funny it wasn't. In fact it's dullsville! Quite embarrassing at times.

It seems under-rehearsed, as if the actors had only read the script once. Mia Farrow is too mannered doing her little-old-lady-in-a-girls-body routine. Surprisingly Dustin doesn't overact.

This film disappeared from sight. Ms. Farrow hardly mentions it in her biography. Does anyone remember it?
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
New York nostalgia...
25 November 2004
I've seen a few times on video and I like it but it's much less than the classic film I thought it was.

Audrey is adorable in her most famous role, stunningly chic in her simple clothes but I have to say she's miscast s Holly! I love Audrey as Holly but it isn't believable that she would be a call-girl taking money from men. Not for a minute would ms. Hepburn be so vulgar, she's too refined in her little girl way. She certainly does not convince that she comes from the south.

The film is a little silly too, as I feel a lot of Blake Edwards films are. They're fancy on the surface with a few nice sight-gags but often there are parts that are empty and don't add up.

The party scene is famous but oh how badly it has aged, even for sixties standards! It looks more like something from the fifties since nothing naughty happens at this party where no one looks under twenty! It is very lame when the guests are "crazy" standing upside-down or talking to a mirror or wearing a watch on an ankle...

It has some dull parts. Ms. Neal has a thankless role as the older woman. Mickey Rooney is terribly embarrassing as the photographer. It's a cute film all in all, unforgettable because of Audrey...
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sweet Charity (1969)
Very entertaining!
14 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen Sweet Charity a few times before without really thinking about it. Certain images remained, especially the Pompeii Club dance and the famous Big Spender scene. Then I read that this was the legendary Bob Fosses first film, that it was big a Hollywood production and that it flopped at the box office. Why? This intrigued me and I finally got hold of a copy. Thankfully the widescreen DVD to see the whole film at its best!

I was expecting a big so-so musical but it was very good! Not the very best but one of the better big sixties musicals. There's not much of a story, a prostitute wants a better life. I was worried that maybe Shirley McLaine would be too saccharine or too old for the part, but she was great. She wasn't pathetic as the girl who gets dumped by men, just another survivor in a big city. Naive but not cute.

It looks like a movie to take the whole family to enjoy but how many brought their kids along to watch a prostitute? (Although nothing rude happens at all.) It's very tame. Younger people at the time thought musicals were square and went to see 'Easy Rider' instead.

*SPOILER* So this movie had no audience except musical lovers who didn't like the downer ending since they expected happy endings! (The alternate ending on the DVD works better and is not too sugary. Fosse thought it corny.)

It's an interesting time capsule of the late sixties. It probably grew old quickly but today it's a camp joy to see all the great sixties fashions! Quite groovy, coming from Hollywood chief designer Edith Head!

The movie starts slow and is too long (2½ hours!) with overtures and an intermission! No one, I guess, had THAT much patience with it. It wasn't Gone with the wind! Perhaps big musicals had fallen out of taste with audiences at the time. There were several other big musical flops at the end of the sixties. HUGE Hollywood productions like Star!,Dr. Dolittle, Hello Dolly, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, On a Clear Day, bombed.

The choreography by Fosse is great! He made too few movies! There are a few similarities with his his next film, Cabaret. The decadent dances at the Fandango and Pompeii clubs and the 'Fickle finger of fate' scene which reminds me of the scene with Liza Minelli and Michael York under a train bridge about to yell.

Chita Rivera and Paula Kelly bring a lot of life to the film too. Oscar is a little dull. What would he be doing in a colorful hippie congregation???? Just an excuse for more fab Fosse footwork! The parade scenes in New York are proof of McLaine's excellent dancing. This a forgotten musical classic waiting to be rediscovered!
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Recommended!
31 August 2004
Nice atmospheric thriller with excellent black and white photography and with chilling use of shadows! The film is inspired by both "Rebecca" and "Laura", and maybe "Suspicion" i suspect... The murderer is obvious but it is still entertaining with a good script!

Loveley performances by Hollywood pros like Claude Rains, Constance Bennet and the underrated Audrey Totter always worth seeing!

This was my first Joan Caulfield movie, apparently a starlet at the end of the 40s, a good actress but a bit forgettable. I love these film noirs from the golden age of Hollywood. Golden age of filmmaking, actually...
40 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
a different kind of horror film....
6 July 2004
The film was not well received when it first came out. People who loved the TV series were very disappointed. None of the series´ charm, humor or cosiness is in the film and few of the original characters are present. Some even replaced by other actors! Agent Cooper is given very little time and several stars show up like Chris Isaak, Keifer Sutherland and worst - David Bowie for very little reason and are just distracting.

But it is a movie worth watching if you like Lynch. The beginning is confusing with many unecessary odd characters that just distract. Much better is the second half. It is absolutely terrifying at times telling the last days of Laura Palmer, the character the whole series revolved around.

Playing her is Sheryl Lee, who is remarkable. Its chilling to see her descent into hell as she witnesses her fathers mental illness unravel.

Some scenes have stayed with me since I saw it 12 years ago for the first time. Like when Laura sees who leaves her house after she sees Bob in her room. Like when she laughs hysterically at the shooting of Mike. Tremendous performance of panic and madness. The film is like the most horrid fever nightmare.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ive tried to see this film many times...
26 June 2004
...but would sit and fast forward it. Does not come near the original film "Out of the Past" from 1947. Attempt to make modern Noir does not work. Its too long and talky. Viewers quickly lose interest in the story, too many threads to follow.

The leads dont have the explosive chemistry to set the screen on fire. Jeff Bridges is too sullen and charmless. Hes got a great body but the beard isnt sexy. Hes also got a lame way of holding his beer bottles and seems to love speeding away in his porche.

Rachel Ward was one of the hottest stars at the time but just disapeared after this. Shes pretty but doesnt seem to believe in the script. No one does except James Woods who always brings excitement to the films hes in. Nice to see Jane Greer from the original film as well as Richard Widmark.

Nice settings in Mexico, otherwise theres no reason to sit thru this dreary thriller.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hunger (1983)
Too many billowing curtains!
23 June 2004
This is one of the worst films Ive ever seen. It does not work as a vampire film nor horror film nor drama or love story. It looks like a perfume ad.

Believe me, I love those flashy 80´s movies like 9½ weeks, Bladerunner and Flashdance etc. with the smokey light streaming thru the venetian blinds with the suggestive music and high heels but this movie gives that genre a bad name!

The acting is really bad by both Sarandon and Deneuve who really seems to be living dead. The same expresion thru out and pitiful english. Bowie´s scenes are thankfully short. This film has no suspense, just lots of stylish blood. Campy but unpleasant viewing.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Couldn´t believe it!
19 June 2004
I had read about the film in the book "50 Worst Films Ever" by the Medved brothers. Ive been waiting to see it for 20 years! I WANTED to like it. Its made by Bogdanovich with Burt Reynolds, Madeleine Kahn and Cybill Shepherd whom I LOVE! But its bad, it really is BAD!!!!

I am a little shocked. That they even DARED! Quite brave of them to go ahead anyway, Ill give them credit for trying!

The critics were right. They had no shame, Peter and Cybill. They were too much in love to understand that others would not be interested in seeing their home movies of them camping around in costumes for two hours.

Theres none of the magic of the old Hollywood musicals, just brightly lit empty sets. Very embarrassing to see what they thought was "witty" banter and the clumsy tap dancing. Less songs would have helped greatly.

Still, its cute to watch them have fun. The very best thing with this movie is Eileen Brennan who is hilarious as the maid, perfectly cast.

Im very glad that I got to see it. Very interesting considering all the other good things Peter and Cybill have done in their careers. Make another movie now!
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mystic River (2003)
1/10
hoping for Oscars....
30 May 2004
Through out this film there are speeches made by some of the lead characters, sequences crying to be used at the Academy Awards when the nominees for best actor are announced. Close-ups of anguished faces here and there.

This is a mediocre thriller devoid of excitement. The murder is explained at the end but there are many holes in the story. The reasons for the killing were quite weak. This movie is slow and dull. Too many talky scenes between the policemen. How many more movies do we have to see with disagreeing cops?

Only thing worth watching during the two hours was Marcia Gay Hardens nervous performance. This is certainly not the classic Oscar winner it is trying so hard to be. I´m going to forget it.
18 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Swept Away (2002)
Poor woman!
21 May 2004
I mean this in different ways. Madonna gets slapped around in the movie. (Really unecessary, the trouble between the two leads could have been shown differently.)

Madonna also takes a beating for trying too hard to be a star not only as a singer and media icon, but also as an actress and she still doesn´t get that it doesn´t work! She should choose which a field she could excell in, instead of tiring everybody by being a jack of all trades. She comes off as a dilettante. You don´t see Julia Roberts realesing albums. (She knows her strengths.)

This movie flopped despite being ok. I was expecting something really bad but it was mildly entertaining. She was even ok as an actress. She should have done something like this years ago instead of forcing lame Madonna-vehicles on unsuspecting audiences. People grew tired of seeing her wish she was a super MOVIE STAR too.

She´s absolutley best at dancing as she does for a moment in this film. She comes alive and it´s fun to watch. She even looks good too. In the rest of the movie she can´t keep a close-up. Harsh words but she doesn´t seem to see herself clearly. She has to have it ALL!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Candy (1968)
for dirty old men only...
21 March 2004
The people behind this movie were obviously expecting a hit but instead they got a huge flop and I understand why. The idea probably was to cash in on the current trend for sex and nudity and all things psychedelic. With the addition of several big male movie stars, a sexy blonde girl and tons of money, what could go wrong at the box office?

It does look expensive but its not sexy, its degrading and very sexist. Hardly ever seen a movie where a girl gets treated like a piece of meat, only there for male gratification as badly as this one. Candy gets used by a number of men, including her uncle and father! It was probably supposed to be shocking but its disgusting really.

The Swede Ewa Aulin is pretty good, doing what she can to keep her head above water. The filming can not have been easy, she´s in every frame. I read she had a breakdown because Marlon Brando was after her all the time.

It´s interesting to see this very 60s film. Lots of starlets, like Anita Pallenberg, Elsa Martinelli and Ringo Starr... But it´s totally pointless besides trying to get Candy undressed. It goes on and on, hardly funny even though it´s meant to be. Leaves a bad taste.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dr. M (1990)
Just hopeless...
21 December 2003
Good idea for a moody futuristic thriller, nice art direction and location photage of Berlin cannot help this european movie mess. Famous french director Chabrol is at a loss with german actors speaking english and lovely Jennifer Beals given no direction at all. It all seems totally unrehearsed one-take filming. Bad sound and lighting do not help. A chance to make an atmospheric Blade Runneresque thriller went down the E.U. drain. A dull waste with interesting ideas worth a remake.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nice ending, terrible thriller...
25 November 2003
This film never engages the viewer. From the very beginning it seems highly improbable that the leads would meet the way they do and that he would work for her. No sparks fly at all between them (even tho they were married at the time).

The plot is very contrived and not exciting. Welles Irish accent is too distracting. Rita is breathtakingly beautiful and is the films only saving grace besides the ending which is inventive but too short.

Incidently the film took a long time to film which is evident in ms. Hayworths wardrobe. At the beginning of the film she wears the New Look, the longer dresses from 1947 that swept fashion after the war. Later in the film she wears the shorter skirts from 1946. Its all in reverse but may be the first Hollywood film to show the legendary New Look from Dior.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hours (2002)
High hopes...
28 April 2003
I looked forward to seeing this film. It seemed to be so good and just shine with QUALITY! I think the producers felt so too and the film does ooze in quality. The photography, the music, costumes, lighting, acting - the whole film seems to have OSCAR nomination written all over it.

So it became tedious. So much praise for these well-to-do white women with big empty lives with nothing to fill it. All they do is walk around and stare into the middle distance and automatically its an Oscar nomination!

The woman that moved me was the one played by Julianne Moore. That segment caught me. Nicole Kidman I cant recall much except looking at the NOSE and Meryl Streep, altho always a good actress, is always MERYL STREEP.

The film was not rivetting for me. Sad, but not the greatest Oscar winner of all time like everyone wants it to be. Overrated but well made.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Truly Awful...
25 February 2003
Unejoyable thriller totally devoid of any mystery with very unappealing characters through out. There is no one to care for. The ones that come off best are the two aunts because their acting is the sharpest.

Mia Farrow is ok as a child, she certainly looks like one but is left stranded by the embarrasing script. Elizabeth Taylor should not have nade anymore films after "Virginia Woolf". She does not fit into the 60s and 70s, looking very bloated and dated, a leftover from old Hollywood. She and otherwise great Robert Mitchum seem to read their lines as if it were the first rehearsal, as if not believing anything of it.

It IS unbelievable, and pointless. The only standout is the magnifcent house with its´ blue tiles. Otherwise the photography and lighting are incredibly dull, not adding any atmosphere to what could have been a descent nutty mystery. A really bad movie from a respected director with red hot 60s stars, especially Mia Farrow, her first role after "Rosemarys Baby".
12 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Now, Voyager (1942)
Bette and Janis Wilson.
3 February 2003
I had heard that the movie was a classic so I bought it. I love Hollywood films from the 40´s, especially film noirs.

This wasn´t what I expected and felt it was a bit slow until the middle when it got good. Bette does´nt chew the scenery as much as she would in her later years. I like that she doesn´t make her role sentimental and slushy so that we´d feel sorry for her. Charlotte is very strong when she goes against her mothers wishes without being mean.

What I enjoyed most was the young actress playing Tina, whom I´d never heard of before. She was astonishly good as the inhibited unwanted pre-teen. What ever happened to Janis Wilson? Her performance rings true and at such a young age she´s on the same level as Bette! She deserves recognition for her part! Is she still alive?
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lovely Hollywood mystery fluff for rainy days!
19 August 2002
I enjoyed it much more the second time around. At first it was far too unbelievable. It hardly made any sense then and I never felt I cared what happened. I bought the video because of Joan Bennett and Fritz Lang making another film noir. Now when i saw it, I loved it and just sat back enjoyed all the hokus-pokus fluff that is delivered quite seriously. It´s supposed to be like "Rebecca" and that´s why I didn´t like it the first time. Too many plot holes! There´s even an exotic ms. Danvers type around with a veil...Too much!

Why would Joan marry and stay with someone so utterly stiff and charmless as Michael Redgrave?? The male lead should have been given to someone more mysterious and attractive. They were hoping for a new Laurence Olivier...

Joan is a treat as always. I love how she comes across as a spoiled debutante who can hardly care to utter her lines with any conviction. She´s a good actress -just a bit too laid back at times. I love her, she is so stunningly beautiful and cool in her Hollywood wardrobes.

I love the whole atmosphere of the movie. It´s slow at first and then from the honeymoon in Mexico and forward so mysterious! I love her bedroom with the tapestry! The thing with the room-collecting was quite farfetched but fun. Who would REALLY aquire complete scenes of murders at home???? I´m going to see it again soon and learn some lines. They don´t make them like they used to!
41 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
How do they get away with it?
12 May 2002
Merchant/ivory have cornered the market for costume dramas. Now it seems they´re running out of 19th century novels to film. Only the dullest ones are left!

It´s all just an excuse to put stars in fancy costumes in Italian and British castles. It´s almost a parody of a Merchant/Ivory film : rich white people saying nothing in grand salons. I have trouble feeling sorry for them.

There´s nothing new to see. Nothing happens for 2 hours and 20 minutes. That´s how long it takes for Kate Beckinsale to find out her husband is cheating and even then it´s undramatic. It goes on and on. It´s 'flawless' except that there is no story and not as "magical" as intended. Only the documentary footage is interesting.

Uma is an ok actress and a big star but quite uninteresting (tho she does have moments while wearing peacock feathers).

Snore
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good entertainment!
5 November 2001
Oh, come on! This was fun! As tv mini series about famous people go this was quite good. Some good lines, good sets and costumes and a little trashy.

Sherilyn Fenn is sensational! She´s very good, giving Liz Taylor some depth being both good and bad. Worth seeing again! Ms. Fenn deserves better movies and should be a HUGE star, really! She´s captivatingly beautiful, spunky and can act!!! sigh...
23 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Amazing...
9 October 2001
It was more than I had hoped for. Hollywood forties film noir glamour...yet everyone is rotten to the core and no one wins. Great performances from a time when stars could act and made the most of a script...and what script! They sure don´t make them like that anymore. Such ideas...the characters...so unusual but people like them have probably existed...

Lovely Gene Tierney transcending her enchanting beauty showing that looks aren´t enough. Victor Mature also playing someone of great charm and little character. I like how the beautiful leads aren´t the heroes. No one is! Ona Munson - so amazing and otherwordly! Where are the strong character parts for women like that today??

The sumptuous sets, everything steeped in mystery. What an atmosphere von Sternberg created...! I loved it! I want so see more films like this and I could see it again. Is it available on video?

Thank you Hollywood!
36 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Zardoz (1974)
The BIGGEST turkey I have ever seen !!!!!
24 September 2001
I can´t make heads or tails of it! A film with the talent of John Boorman, Sean Connery and Charlotte Rampling sounds great and if it´s a sci-fi movie then all the more promising...

Oh boy, this shows that movies about the future should not have been made during the hippie 70´s... It´s like a bad episode of some british TV fantasy program that just goes on and on....the cheap sets - bed sheets for crying out loud!!!

And as someone said earlier : Sean Connery in this movie is like watching somebody´s dad running around in red diapers...What were they thinking???? Where they all on drugs???
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
snore....zzzzzzzzzzzzz
10 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Very bad. Mr. King is running out of ideas. Senseless murders for no point other than *EVIL*. So many plot holes....SPOILERS ahead!

If the bad guy wanted a child, why didn´t he just take one in the beginning? All the wierd and suggestive things that happened along with the grizzly murders (to satisfy bloodthirsty audiences) were for no reason than just kicks for the wicked ghost.

King had some interesting ideas by exposing the hypocrisy of normal small town "good" folk. But did they ever have a choice at the end? Give up a child or let the murders continue - pointless. And the silly tacked-on sequel-friendly ending...oh boy, REALLY bad!
14 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
be catholic !
18 June 2001
B-movie pro catholisism and anti self-help groups that doesn´t succeed in converting anyone because of the silly non frightening special effects. WHEN is the serial killer trend gonna end?????

Although she´s good, what´s Kimmy Basinger doing in it? Is she still paying off that million dollar dept? The woman playing Kim´s sister is good too. Christina Ricci is wasted. I feel like joining a cult.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible
16 April 2001
Fascinating story of a boy left alone in China during world war II has movie potential. Unfortunately mr. Spielberg is just like the boy in the film, fascinated by low flying planes, explosions and mass scenes with thousands of people running about.

The drama of the story takes a backseat to the special effects and the moving camera that´s supposed to create a "magic" sense of being right there! The film though, is entirely without suspence and mystery. So the boy runs around being obnoxious and dreams of joining the big American boys. It is the work of a man who isn´t very mature and does not know how to handle adult or serious issues. The film is more like a boy´s adventure at summer camp than world war! Indiana Jones junior...
74 out of 152 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daddy says it´s not so bad...
19 March 2001
Not as dull as I was lead to believe... Brando is miscast, he seems to have participated as favour to the legendary Chaplin. (Chaplin shouldn´t have asked him. Maybe the stuffy Sydney Chaplin would have been better in the lead...) Sophia is a trouper, jumping out of chairs, pretending to be sick... very kind of her to sink to that level... Again, it must have been the honour of having been chosen by Chaplin...

The story has potential as a romantic comedy but the film is a bit too long and slow with the sometimes funny jokes far between...

Very interesting to see though, with many interesting side characters like the butler Hudson, Tippi Hedren from "The Birds" in a thankless role as the chilly wife, granddaughter Geraldine Chaplin in a bit part and the very underrated Angela Scoular as the society girl who steals the entire movie... The film must have seemed quite dated when it was released in the restless sixties. Worth checking out...
21 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed