Reviews

The biggest flaw in most Rohmer films is their talkiness. If you doubt this, I suggest you start with "Autumn Tale," which opens with a half hour conversation in the middle of a field. It's one of the most excrutiatingly boring stretches of cinema I've ever seen.

Imagine then my surprise when I viewed this little gem. "Chloe in the Afternoon" is still a talk film and Rohmer isn't able to generate the visual excitement that some directors can, but don't let that deter you. The dialogue (and narration) get to the point, while Rohmer's relaxed approach to pacing and visual style are here a virtue. I didn't think him capable of a film this good.

Proof that even Audrey Hepburn's bad movies are worth watching, and make no mistake about it this is a bad movie. The director Blake Edwards, the screenwriters and every member of the cast except Audrey seem hell bent on making this a snore. It hasn't got story, dialogue, characters, exciting camera work or anything else that is required of a classic movie. It all comes down to Miss Hepburn and her Givenchy dresses. Having said that don't let that stop you from watching it; any time spent in the company of the charming Miss Hepburn (and she is at her most charming here) is time well spent. Just don't expect a classic, like say "Charade."

Many of the great documentaries and shorts made by the National Film Board of Canada are not well known even in their native country. I read about this film in the Oxford History of World Cinema (pp.733, 734) and was lucky enough to see it on television. This is no mere educational experience as so many documentaries are, but a true work of art. The imagery and the use of music (even though I am not a huge Paul Anka fan) are striking. There is no better study of teen idols and their effect on fans (mostly teenage girls). The directors, Wolf Koenig and Roman Kroiter, should be granted far more recognition.

I cannot imagine "Gilda" without Rita Hayworth, but this is no mere excuse for putting a beautiful woman on screen. Great dialogue and great direction make this a classic, period. There are a couple unsure camera movements and the ending is perhaps a little too happy for a noir, but this still packs a whollop.

An ungainly attempt to marry film noir and soap opera. This could have been a great noir, as evidenced by the smoking dialogue between wally fay and mildred, but then we are dragged into an absurd family melodrama. Crawford would have been far more convincing as a femme fatale rather than the self-sacrificing mother she does play. A missed opportunity for greatness.

This is one of the dirtiest, most foul mouthed movies I have ever seen, but that is all to the good. Doubtless this is why it arouses such a strong negative reaction among some people. However, those who love raunchy satire in the tradition of Rabelais, Boccaccio, and Swift need look no further. Those writers have also tended to provoke certain readers. Not for the tame.

If like myself you are going to watch this movie because of its director, Michael Curtiz, save yourself the trouble and avoid this rather forced comedy. Its not that the movie doesn't get a handful of laughs; it's just that the whole concept is so hopelessly out of date. Incredibly, most of the movie is spent trying to persuade the father to be baptized for fear he will burn forever in hell. The stagy production and cornball humour do not much help. A Victorian sitcom.

One of the dumbest movies I have ever seen, but, amazingly, after 60 years it is still good fun. But unlike say "Empire Strikes Back," I am unable to remember even a single profound or moving moment in the whole film; even the WW2 speachifying at the end is no more than adequately done.

DePalma is little more than a mediocre Hitchcock. He is certainly gorier than the master, but there is not much else to recommend him. Having once been a high school student, I can safely say that no one in "Carrie" acts even remotely like anyone I have ever known. Having known many religious people, I would say that even the craziest and most fanatical of them did not much resemble Carrie's mother. I did find DePalma's use of a split screen during the movies big scene to be quite interesting but even that seemed little more than a stylistic trick to enliven a rather ludicrous killing spree. De Palma is interested in shock rather than story and gore rather than character.

I can't really say anything bad about this movie except to say that compared to other bogart movies (such as the maltese falcon, sierra madre, casablanca or the big sleep) this one disappointed me. It's mildly entertaining in the way that a good television episode of "the practice" or "nypd blue" can sometimes be, but I just can't place it with those other classic films.

I went to see this movie with my 4 year old nephew and he of course loved it. For adults however this must be one of the excruciating movie experiences ever. While the filmmakers have lavished their talents on the animation, no one seems to have felt the need give us an actual story. Flick must be one of the most virtuously boring film heroes ever. The moral of the film appears to be that we should value eccentric and imaginative people instead of ostracizing them. This is all fine and dandy, except in such a tendentious presentation. We go to the movies for a story, not a sermon.

I cannot believe this won the best picture oscar. Abraham is of course superb, but as for the rest of the cast I can only say that this is one of the worst acted films I have ever seen. While Mozart was impulsive, frivolous, and certainly not a saint, I was dismayed to find Hulce playing him like a total idiot. Hulce never reveals to us the intelligence beneath the mask of silliness. Great artists may sometimes be silly or half-crazy, but none of them are such complete morons. Add to this mix some really bad dialogue and the result is a scandalously overrated film.

Excruciatingly long. I have no idea why this film is still so highly rated. It doesn't have any characters; all of the people in the film are as banal as your neighbors. Your neighbors may nice enough people but no one would watch a movie about them. We watch movies to see the exceptional, to take us away from the people we see every day. Great movie characters all have a great exuberance and a vital energy. They are often grand eccentrics. All that Vito Corleone, the various Woody Allens, Kane, Scarlet O'Hara and so many others share is this vital exuberance so painfully missing from anyone in this film. Movie characters may be virtuous and good but they should never be nice and this movie drowns in its niceness, in all its stolid virtues.