Reviews

My initial rating was 5 out of 10, but several factors bumped it up. The art direction, the lighting, the cinematography, the cast, the choreography, the direction. It's like a stage production on film.

What drags it down for me personally is that I finished the movie not wanting to watch it again.

If you're uncomfortable with homosexual-centric plotlines, I suggest you skip this one. If you're uncomfortable with "period pieces" indicative of 1970s/1980s stereotypical homosexual behavior, I suggest you skip this one. If you're okay with all that, then give this one at least one viewing.

My mother told me that is art happens when it's both entertaining and enlightening. Fassbinder achieves it in my opinion. She also taught me that art is subjective.

Shame on TCM's Import host Alicia Malone for spoiling the ending in her intro. I went into the film expecting what she said would happen. Boy, did that spoil the fun. Regardless, it wasn't violent enough for my taste, despite its American bent.

In all fairness, the editing is superb. The pace of the film is, I admit, captivating. The cinematography is above par.

There is no plot. There is no acting, aside from the child and the wife. If you're a fan of Chantal Ackerman, you may very well get a kick out of this film. It's kind of a blend of her 3+ hour masterpiece and her Letters From Home, which she personally narrates.

You can read plenty of reviews for spoilers. You won't get them here.

My fondest memory or George Hamilton is Love At First Bite. I saw it in the theater upon its release, and he's been forever cemented in my memory for that role. It's only been the last ten years that I've been exposed to his cinematic body of work thanks almost totally to the TCM channel.

He does a surprisingly and satisfyingly good job in this film. Unfortunately, the only way to describe this movie is odd. Initially, I wanted to title my review as bizarre, but that's too good of an adjective.

I'm left wondering why in the heck did this film ever get greenlighted. The IMDB reviews seem to focus on Elmer Gantry and Burt Reynolds. Who cares? It feels in totality like a throw-away regardless.

I'm a huge Blondell fan, but she seems to blunder her way through this one.

This one's great for those who ponder the preposterousness of Hollywood as a whole. Released in the early 1960s, I can't imagine its box office draw. If I'd seen it in the theater, I'd have wondered why I didn't stay home to begin with.

If you have to explain to me what a film is about, then I quickly if not permanently lose interest. Such is with this movie. Without a background, political synopsis, this cinematic experience drifts slowly and permanently into a void.

Surprisingly, I couldn't advert my eyes from it. Yes, I saw it through until the end. Even then, I was left asking WTF did I just see. I'm left now wondering why I bothered.

In order to fully understand, one needs a pre-emptive history lesson. That's a sad prerequisite. Regardless, it's captivating.

This one's great for historians. If you're not one, the watch it solely for its film-making style even though you may well ask yourself why you bothered. Cast is superb.

Two pre-teen brothers give everyone the silent treatment unless their parents buy them a TV. That's it. That's all you get.

I loved the cinematography. I also loved that it was shot in color, as it would have been even more seriously boring if it had been shot in black and white. The child actors in the film are adorable.

If you feel this film would have been better served as a short, it's because you're right. There's not enough here to sustain feature length. It's absolutely cutesy, but cutesy doesn't necessarily cut it.

To its credit, this one turns the old adage that children should be seen and not heard on its head. Like so many post-WW2 Japanese films, it explores America's influence on the country's culture. Unfortunately, it took me 60 minutes of running time before I even cared.

It's so important when watching a film like this to take into context both the century and decade it was filmed. The implausibility factor ranks high but should easily be forgiven considering such. These types of movies of course seem terribly tame nowadays when compared to current offerings; still, it must have packed quite a punch at the time of release.

I agree with reviewers who rave about the casting, but I also agree with those who find Mason's performance to be nothing more than standard. Dickinson and Klugman seem a bit miscast. It's a miracle Steiger doesn't chew up the scenery as he usually did, but he does a good job. The real star, however, is Stevens. I find her performance to be quite riveting.

In my opinion, the real shout-out goes to Virginia Stone. What a fantastic job she did editing this film. Her talent is also evident in The Last Voyage, an obvious influence when it comes to The Poseidon Adventure and Cameron's Titanic. We just don't get enough nods to women behind the camera in the entertainment industry.

Recommended for 1950s crime-thriller buffs. Otherwise, it's somewhere between good and really good but certainly not excellent.

The imdB reviews seem to be all over the place. I disagree that this film is brilliant, and I also disagree that this film is trash. It's somewhere in the middle, perhaps a notch or doubtfully two above that.

It's well edited. A mini-shout out to Leonard Rosenman for the musical score. The acting is good, and although I find Richard Thomas to be a bit of an odd ball of an actor, I think he does a really good job in this movie.

Honestly, I don't care what true events loosely inspired the script; it has some interesting things to say about youth at the time it was filmed/released. I agree with the reviewer who wrote that the dialogue seriously lags in important places. And the sound quality of the dialogue is lacking.

This one's great for fans of 1970s moody films with a budding narrative indicative of the decade. It feels like another ABC TV movie of the week special. Unusual casting. Decent plotline.

Blumhouse Blumfudged this one. I once read that Rod Serling got many of his ideas for The Twilight Zone by writing down his dreams as soon as he awoke from them. If that's true, then this movie is proof that some things work better on paper than on screen.

It feels like a Twilight Zone episode, but my oh my does it fail to deliver. I admit that the art direction soars. The color pallet is divine. Sadly, that's where it ends.

Unintended belly laughs. Boredom. Ridiculousness. That's what I took away from this experience. I got to see this for free on HBO, and I'm glad I didn't give in to the temptation upon its release to pay for a movie theater ticket.

And Hollywood wonders why we stay at home to watch TV.

I'll be watching this one again and again. This movie is yet another example of when all elements combine to make a cohesive, entertaining, and enlightening experience. All films are dated, but this one remains topical.

The concept of immigration is nothing innovative, yet this film pushes it to the forefront, so much so that it feels like it was released yesterday. For those of us born in America, we more often than not take our freedom, as well as the luxury of opportunity, for granted. The story told in this film shows one exactly how that happens.

I think this should be required viewing for middle school students and older studying civics. I also think it should be required for bigots who look down upon and pass judgment on refugees. My only critique is that it feels a bit like a television production, but that's more than likely attributed to its independent funding.

This is the second Luchino Visconti film I've seen. The first was Death In Venice, which was absorbing if not disturbing. I will say the man knew how to put on a show.

As I perused the IMDb reviews after I saw the film in its entirety, which was a bit of a chore, the ratings were 9s and 10s all the way. So why am I one of the ones who gives it 7? Perhaps I'm not intellectually equipped enough to get it, or perhaps it's not the masterpiece as hailed. Regardless, it's tailored to fans of the director without a doubt.

My take is that it's a dark fairy tale full of allegory, metaphor, and disillusion. Reviewing this film lends itself to spoilers, and that's not fair. Be certain that if you don't know your history, specifically your German history of the Nazis during the time frame in which the film takes place, you'll be at a guaranteed loss. Luckily, I knew enough to put together the pieces of the puzzle; yet I still had to do some research to solidify the bigger picture.

I totally agree with the reviewer who noted the hair styling is exemplary. I would like to add that most of the cast are beautiful to look at. Unfortunately, I also agree with the reviewer who commented on the overacting.

This is a story about perversion. I found some of it implausible. The film is basically some Italian dude's version of what Germans did during the rise of the Nazi regime. In my opinion, it's formidable and worth one watch if you're a fan of Visconti or Italian cinema in general, but that's where it ends.

I won't watch it again.

Ms. Mayo must have been friends with bit part player Helen Westcott, who had a fine career, because I remember both of them fondly from the film Flaxy Martin. I can't help but wonder if Mayo got Westcott her part in this film. Westcott's performance here is formidable, especially when questioned by the police; but my fondness of her is from Flaxy Martin.

As far as Smart Girls Don't Talk, I think it's the script that truly drags down this potential entry in the noir style. It's difficult to fault the director. Cinematography is good. Lighting not so noir.

I confess I've seen this at least five times, and yet I'm still not sure why. Is it because sometimes subpar is entertaining? Is it because it's Mayo? It's certainly not because it's the talented but lanky Bruce Bennett.

Perhaps I'm truly a junkie for 1940s Hollywood. In all honesty, this one's a toss-up. Heads or tails you'll like it or dislike it.

It doesn't get more juvenile than the plethora of 1940s Hollywood movies that depict Caucasians and their conflicts with syrupy sweetness. Don't get me wrong; I'm a sucker for Our Vines Have Tender Grapes and, of course, Pollyanna. But the only thing that really saves this kissy-kissy is director Negulesco.

I recommend this one only for extremely diehard fans of Garson. Her cohort Walter is so-so but effective. Unsurprisingly, the children in the cast propel the storyline.

It's important to consider that the biggest conflict presented is protestant vs. Catholic. And that's not a spoiler. Might seem more than tame now, but it was notable then.

I DVR'd this film off of TCM's lineup, frankly because I was intrigued by the title. The only cast members' names I recognized were Gene Hackman, Kent Smith, and Earl Holliman. I'm glad I took a chance on this film.

First, if given the chance, I'd like to shake the hand of Mr. George Maharis. What a wonderful performance he delivers. The rest of the cast is fine, too; and there's no doubt in my mind that they cared about this project and wanted to give it their all. The production is slick, although I concede it feels more like a network movie of the week more than it does a full fledged theatrical release.

One of the aspects of the film that really surprises and pleases me is the representation of a then minority group/characters as forerunners of the plotline. The story centers around a Mexican-American, and while the usual stereotypes and cultural appropriation are present here, the fact that the producers took a chance on making it the focus is worthy of praise. Considering it was released in 1967, it deserves recognition for that fact alone.

If you're cool with melodramas from the late 1960s, you'll like this.

Why add a review to the already 900+ that exist? Because it's easy to claw apart a horror film for all its flaws, and plenty of that has been done. But when we let this movie exist in its own universe on its own terms, it's simply...fun!

Am I happy with the storyline? Not really. However, I appreciate the slight, and I do mean slight, social commentary about the inherit dysfunction in family dynamics this film presents. Sadly, it's not enough to carry a feature length screenplay.

Despite my biggest pet peeve that it's literally and visually so dark you can't make out much detail, it managed to be enough of a thrilling ride that I watched it in its entirety. If it pops up again on a mainstream network edited, and undoubtedly with commercials, I might watch it on a day when I'm cleaning the house and doing laundry.

It's difficult to review this film because I'm left feeling unsatisfied, and contrary to other reviews, it's not because of the ending. Strangely enough, I actually liked the ending.

The storyline is simply and truly strange. I'm never read the source material, so I can't comment on the screenplay's authenticity as an adaptation. The mood of the film, to me, is a combination of perversity, dysfunction, and a weird sense of expressionism. It moves slowly and deliberately, yet it managed to hold my attention until the very end.

The cast does a fine job. Unfortunately, that alone is not enough to motivate me to watch it again. If you're a fan of the eclectic, especially if it's 20th century Japanese cinema, you might find this one worth watching at least once. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it.

Sir Olivier repeats the line that it doesn't make sense during the movie, and it couldn't be more appropriate as a summation of this hodgepodge of a film. I'm left wondering not only what I watched but why and what was the point. The challenge is reviewing it without spoilers.

I'm not convinced I like any of the characters. I'm not convinced that the ending is satisfying. I'm not convinced I'll watch it again. Regardless, the actors excel in their roles.

I finished watching it because Simone Signoret can do no wrong in my book. I didn't give up on it because the direction and editing are superb. Sadly, I'm left with asking myself what was the point.

This film feels specific. If you've ever seen the Family Guy episode when they're about to drown in the panic room and Peter says that The Godfather insists upon itself, then you'll understand how this film works.

I agree with the reviewer who wrote the movie is too long, but its running time is a small flaw I'm willing to overlook. In fact, it's truly a slow-burn police procedural/thriller. It requires patience.

The direction is on spot. The cinematography is not innovative, but the lush widescreen shots are sumptuous. The supporting cast deserves accolades, to say the least.

However, the reality is that the musical score is purely stunning. Its romanticism is immersive, to the point I was questioning during the first act why a crime mystery/thriller would employ a score reminiscent of Franz Waxman or Max Steiner. But after enduring the overlong running time, it made sense.

An absolute must-see for fans of Japanese cinema and a recommended watch for fans of procedurals/mysteries. But if you are a die-hard fan of film music, shame on you for skipping this one.

I can just imagine teenage boys in 1952 rushing to the Saturday matinee to see this one. It has testosterone-fueled action, a romantic subplot, and political commentary to round it all out. While it doesn't make for climactic cinema, it does sufficiently make for a fun ride.

What really surprised me was the concept of racial tolerance. Alaska would not become an official state for at least seven years, yet this movie goes out of its way -- at least in one or two scenes -- to include Eskimos as worthy. When one takes into consideration the horrible injustice Hollywood has inflicted on minorities and the outcast, regardless of reason, it's surprisingly refreshing to see it addressed in this movie.

Nice mix of on-location shooting and in-studio scenes.

Won't watch again but am glad I did see it.

I really liked this movie. Despite the dull pace. Despite the contemptable characters. Despite the goofy surrealism. Despite the wonky music score. Despite the director's self-indulgence.

In juxtaposition, there are elements of this film that I did not like. Despite the master performance by Mr. Vazquez. Despite the interesting concept. Despite the nifty camera work.

For those who enjoy cerebral film devoid of entertainment, this one's for you. But please, do us all a favor if someone new to subtitled films invites a suggestion of what to watch, don't point them in the direction of this film.

There's a brief reference to Stevens' classic starring Taylor, Clift, and Winters.

Worth one viewing for die hard cinema junkies.

Quirky. That's the best adjective I can come up with.

If you subtracted the nudity and simulated sex, it could well be a Hallmark Channel Mystery movie. It's sort of like a grown-up Nancy Drew.

It's worth one watch if you're a fan of Spanish cinema. Other than that, don't expect to be fulfilled.

The editing is expert. The directing and acting are par for the course. The music score gives it all away with its carnival themes.

It's definitely entertaining. I doubt I will watch it again. There's simply not enough meat here on the proverbial bones.

Undoubtedly, it's fun, if that's all there is to it.

A woman engages in contemplative thoughts and conversations. There you go. That's what it's about.

I was enthralled with the camerawork...shots from the backs of heads, the minimal panning of the camera from right the left and back and forth, the cut-aways, the segmentation of presentation in, for lack of better description, chapters. In short, this film's style is exhilarating.

As far as substance, I was left with an existential feeling of Peggy Lee's hit Is That All There Is? In other words, so what? We all have dreams and aspirations. Most of us never see those come to fruition. And if you're destined for tragedy, you can guess the rest.

So what?

Slow. Deliberate. Engaging. Mesmerizing. Poetic.

The real star of the show is the exterior shots. The acting, especially by Papas, is deservedly acclaimed. The music score is sumptuous. The minimal dialogue serves to heighten the film-watching experience. But what strikes me dumbfounded is the amazing blocking of the actors...most assuredly by the director...as it mimics true choreography.

One imdB reviewer labels this film a "snorefest". I can understand that opinion if you require something action-oriented. This film is purely cerebral, so don't expect something beyond that.

Oddly enough, my cable provider classifies this film as AO--Adults Only. That rating, also known as NC-17, is reserved for sexual content deemed too explicit to warrant an R rating. Be assured there's absolutely and assuredly nothing explicit about this film. No sex. All violence is implied.

Recommended for cinema junkies.

My other taught me when I was a young child that sometimes entertainment is entertainment for its own sake. I was 22 when I saw this in the theater in 1987, and I remember thinking then what I think now that I saw it again today in January of 2023: not every movie has to be Oscar material.

In retrospect, yes, the movie is goofy, but that's okay. It's certainly nothing to be taken seriously. And its foundation is built on that. This is as solid of a B picture as you can get.

Surprisingly, the make-up effects are formidable. The actors obviously make the most of a campy script. The music soundtrack is somewhat obscure.

I think what I like about this movie is its throwback to an antiquated notion that men are monsters and only women can tame them because...well...they're women.

If you're looking for an uplifting film, you won't find it here. Without knowing anything about the director, I'm assuming this movie is, at least somewhat, autobiographical. It feels extremely personal, and I did experience a sense of kinship in its coming-of-age elements.

I don't know how old the teenagers were during filming; but if made today and the lead actors were under 18 years of age, it's highly likely someone would be charged with a crime. Despite its exploitive moments, it does somehow capture the innocence of discovering physical affection during pubescence. Nothing explicit, mind you, but enough to make me uncomfortable--and rest assured, I'm no prude.

I definitely liked it, but I won't watch it again. Recommended only for film junkies.

In short, this film is a romcom revolving around issues with commitment, specifically marriage. It gets its MPAA rating from obligatory bare female breasts, a gimmick overly utilized by the film industry at the time to lure pubescent and post-pubescent boys into the theater. Surprisingly, it's actually a bit touching emotionally.

The best part of this movie for me is the bit-part players. There's Anrea Martin of SCTV fame giving a scene-stealing performance. Teddy Pendergrass sings songs produced and/or cowritten by Nile Rodgers during his Chic affiliation. Even Christine Baranski shows up at some point.

If you're a fan of Adam Sandler movies, and perhaps Woody Allen movies, you'll probably appreciate this somewhat throwaway of a gem.