Reviews

25 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Worth the wait.
27 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I will get this out first. I'm old enough that I have seen a few Star Trek TNG episodes on it's original run, but I am also a fan of Star Trek TOS and have always found TNG lacking.

The writer's fascination with Wesley Crusher kept me from becoming a fan originally. How a snot nosed kid could continually save the day just meant sloppy writing for me. But I digress.

I finally decided to watch the whole TNG saga. I noticed at the beginning in Series 3 things were looking up. Tonight, I finally watched episode 15, Yesterday's Enterprise. I had heard nothing about it and my expectations were middling. Imagine my surprise when I was greeted with stunning speculative Science Fiction of the first rank, seriously challenging anything in the Original Series.

From a sweet script and chilling drama to great ensemble acting, I was blown away. A previous iteration of the Enterprise suddenly appears 22 years after it was supposedly destroyed and instantly changes the Star Trek universe. How and why it was changed and the manner in which this all unfolded left me breathless. Superior television and drama worthy of the name Science Fiction. I think I will rewatch this right now.

I now look forward to more TNG; better late than never.
22 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Could have been great
30 March 2014
This production could have been great, but too many mistakes were made. It has so much going for it. Alec Guiness as the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, is brilliant in his role. Also honorable mention to James Mason as Timonides and Christopher Plummer a very under-rated Commodus. As far as acting, that is about it.

Also not to be forgotten is the amazing set design and photography, which I think remain unmatched to this day.

On the negative side, a fright wigged Stephen Boyd as Livius practically begs the audience to chuckle. Likewise Sophia Loren, sporting about ten pounds of 1960's Italian Vogue make-up, is wasted. She and Boyd are actors that could, if given proper direction, deliver decent performances. That direction was sadly lacking in this movie. At times, when these two are together, the movie feels like a Barbra Cartland Bodice ripper, with hot declarations of love and long simmering stares at one another.

The director obviously had no idea WHAT he wanted to do with the movie. Most egregiously, the score was absolutely horrendous. That mishmash of genres and boring symphonic melodies clashed with almost every minute of screen time in which they were utilized. A worse example of a score I cannot imagine.

And let us not forget the plot, if it can be described as such. Somehow the meandering, at cross purposes, vague and boring plot managed to stretch 188 minutes into a seeming 188 THOUSAND, waiting in vain for something to actually happen. Nothing really ever does.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Dick Van Dyke Show (1961–1966)
10/10
I love the show
10 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not the demographic nor right age nor nationality even, but my mother loved old television shows because her mother had watched them with her and she watched them with me. I grew to love old American movies and stars and television and there is a special place in my heart for The Dick Van Dyke Show. I had spent my childhood watching actors and movies that were 60 years or more before my time, so I loved not only Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore but the old vaudevillian types like Morey Amsterdam and Rose Marie, and the 60's stalwarts like Richard Deacon. To me it suggests a time of decency, whatever the political landscape may have been, and of old delicatessens and smoking in the office and so many other things that taken by themselves may mean nothing but in their entirety suggest a way of life far more sophisticated and paradoxically simple and pure than anything we have in my generation today.

The Dick Van Dyke show is about far more however; it's about funny, thoughtful, clear headed meaningful people as most Amerians I think used to be, and about laughing with people instead of at them. People like Buddy Sorel and Sally Rogers and Rob and Laura Petrie are so greatly missed, it's lovely to be able to visit them from time to time.

These people were real artists, and this show is one of the best, most literate, ever. It makes me long for an era I never knew.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
EXTREMELY under-rated tour-de-force for the Brilliant Bette
10 February 2013
I cannot help but be disappointed by the reviews this movie has thusfar received in IMDb, but not surprised.

With respect to Glenda Jackson and Cate Blanchett, neither of those ladies can hold a patch on the brilliant Bette Davis, perhaps the greatest actress ever, as the immortal Queen Elizabeth I, perhaps the greatest monarch that England ever knew.

Whether or not the movie is weak history, the movie shines as a vehicle for La Davis. Richard Todd gives a decent performance, although I submit he has neither the acting chops nor the charisma of Errol Flynn. But he serves well in the role.

The costumes, cinematography and screenplay are bright and arresting. And like it or not, Bette Davis' brilliant, mannered, and astoundingly powerful depiction of Queen Elizabeth I has informed every ensuing depiction of the Virgin Queen
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Merlin (2008–2012)
10/10
The Evolution of "Merllin" SPOILERS
26 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I had my doubts about Merlin in the beginning. The Arthurian legend was very much modified but at heart it was clearly King Arthur. I was at first taken aback by the fantasy element but grew to love it, as the earliest Arthurian legends did include references to mythological creatures. But the fart jokes were particularly hard to take.

However, the series grew stronger with each season and I found the romance between Arthur and Gwen compelling if perhaps a trifle underwritten. Instead, the relationship between Merlin and Arthur took center stage, as one would expect in a series entitled "Merlin". Perhaps there was a little too much of Merlin "saving" Arthur, to the point it might have eroded the Arthurian legend, but the interaction of the two male leads, and their complicated and often amusing, sometimes heartbreaking relationship, was in the end, nearly perfect.

The last season, for me, ended on a particularly high note. I had expected Arthur's death, given the predeliction of BBC writers for inappropriately tragic finales. I would ask the writers to sometimes remember that the legends of Robin Hood and of King Arthur were not Greek tragedy, but epic tales designed to inspire. However, despite my reserves on the issue, it was done beautifully, and for me, the last few episodes, with Arthur putting all on the line for Albion, were exquisite. I will go so far to say that, for me, the final four episodes of Arthur were perhaps the most powerful depiction of the Arthurian legend ever captured on film, and this includes "Excalibur". The heartwrending realization of Merlin that every step he took to avoid the death of his king, Arthur, only sealed Arthur's fate more inevitably, was particularly powerful.

The final episode had me awash in tears. Although I felt Arthur should have lived, because never once in his reign was his beloved Camelot a peaceful place where the flowering of the British spirit could take place. I would have wished at least that Gwen, as she took the throne would have been attended by the other kings, who would have thrown their support behind her, and united the Island, as is the mythos. This would have perhaps legitimized the spirit of Arhtur. And I would have loved for her to issue a proclamation that magic would return to the land. But in the end, what we did get was an imaginative and exquisite evocation of the end of Arthur and the beginning of the legend. And I could not ask for more.
19 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
If you love Kdrama and JDrama, you'll love this, and even if you don't
8 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
My Girlfriend is a Gumiho is a title I avoided for over a year after it arrived for European consumption. I had long ago become a big fan of the charming "KDramas" and "JDramas" from South Korea and Japan. Often inspired or even derived from anime and manga, these dramas, though generally formulaic, are wonderfully acted, charming, funny often, and hearken back to a time when movies and TV shows were great without gratuitous violence or demeaning language.

But I avoided "My Girlfriend is a Gumiho" because the title seemed to promise a television experience about as thought provoking as Beach Blanket Bingo. Out of boredom I decided to try it out one night when I was looking for something to tide me over while waiting for a title to appear that would be more promising.

Sounds rather stupid, doesn't it? That's what I thought until I actually watched it.

I was so wrong. It only took one complete episode and I realized MGIAG was something special. The two leads, Lee Seung Gi as Cha Dae Woong, the brash but good hearted college guy whose dream is to be an action star, and Shin Min-Ah as Gu Mi Ho, the "Gumiho" or "Nine Tailed Fox" a mystical creature who takes the form of a beautiful girl, are fantastic.

These two wonderful actors inhabit these cute roles that start out as silly and adorable and slowly take on deeper meaning as the two of them begin to realize they have feelings for one another, and then tragic overtones as they realize that they most likely can never be.

I swear I have never laughed so much as I did during the early episodes, nor have I cried so much as I did during the final three or four episodes as they acknowledge their love and grow into powerful souls devoted to protecting the other at all costs.

The entire cast is wonderful, and the production values are excellent The music goes from fun and tuneful to sweet and haunting.

I cannot recommend this drama enough.
23 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
love this movie
29 August 2012
Just saw it today for the first time, and I really loved it. I don't care if its labeled "propoganda" and I don't care if a bunch of guys here don't like it because its not some boring war movie with hours of flying sequences. I especially loved the review that mourned the fact that we didn't get to see more planes refueling. Honey, it's not a documentary!

It's charming and Grable's musical numbers are so fun! (And this is the first time I have ever liked Grable).. The tunes are fantastic. Today's Hollywood on its best day couldn't put together a movie have as cohesive or fun.

Best of all, it's got Tyrone Power who, along with Errol Flynn, are the two best looking, most charming male actors ever. Love love love it!
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Uninvited (1944)
10/10
Stella By Starlight
24 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I love this movie. My Grandmother loved old black and white movies, and she taught my mother to love them, and my mother taught me to love them in turn. We sat side by side and still do watching these incredible, elegant images from so long ago.

Special to me is The Uninvited. In 9th Grade I met a wonderful boy, who it turned out loved old movies too and his favourite was The Uninvited. He was the most brilliant person I have ever known. The way he described a movie he loved sent chills down my spine, he really should have been a writer. We spent hours watching this and other movies, cuddling together and learning from these movies a world where elegance and charm and intelligence still had power.

From the opening music, Stella by Starlight, to the luminous otherworldly demeanor of Gail Russell, to the brother and sister pair of Ray Milland and Ruth Hussey, we basked in the beauty of this movie and I basked in the power of his imagination.

There came a time when boys began to notice me, and for a time I slowly began to withdraw from William, the boy I loved, and let the handsome, cool boys and their attentions influence me, and at last I gave in to my youth and stupidity and I dumped William during the first year of college. William was so hurt he left school and returned home. For a year I lost myself to my own vanity, but slowly I began to remember William and realize that I loved him and only him, after all.

I called his home to be told that he had just died.

Now, all that I have left of him are the memories, and chief among them is The Uninvited. Whenever I watch it, and I watch it often, the tears begin to flow as soon as I hear the lovely strains of Stella By Starlight...

I cry not for a love lost. I cry because The Uninvited reminds me of what we shared and how lovely life can be. I will love film, and especially this film, and I will love William, forever.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
wonderful version
9 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
For me, most all films made during the golden age of Hollywood are excellent and compare more than favourably with modern films, but this version of Pride and Prejudice stands out as my favourite version of them all.

Let me say this. I love every film version of Jane Austen's seminal work, Pride and Prejudice. It's true that every version has its faults, but it is also true that every version has it's triumphs as well.

The 1980 film series is perhaps most accurate. The costumes and demeanor seem most accurate pertaining to late Georgian/Regency England.

The 1995 miniseries is by far the most complete, containing just about every facet of the book. Also, Jennifer Ehle is most likely the finest Elizabeth. That distinction might have gone to Greer Garson had she worn a few kilos less Max Factor.

The 2005 Keira Knightly version is the most modern and in some ways the most romantic.

But for me, despite some glaring changes/omissions, the 1940 version starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier is still the best. Ms Garson, despite appearing too old for the part, is absolutely pitch perfect and well captures Elizabeth's humorous nature. In fact, humor is likely this versions strength. Because Pride and Prejudice above all is a humorous look at Regency England and the lifestyle of the middle classes in England at that time, most particularly the Bennet household.

Laurence Oliver, the greatest stage actor of the last century or two, and one of the greatest actors who ever lived, is wonderful as Mr. Darcy, if perhaps a tad too arch at times. Portraying a Regency snob is fraught with little traps and unfortunately, Lord Oliver does trip a few times and comes across as a bit prissy. But he is not alone, most other actors attempting Mr. Darcy end up looking a bit fey from time to time as well.

David Rintoul, who, in the 1980 version, gives probably the most accurate depiction of Mr. Darcy of them all, is positively cringeworthy from time to time he is almost lady-boy.

The only two actors who never seem effeminate in any way in the role of Mr. Darcy, Colin Firth and Matthew MacFadyen, both seem wooden at times, although I love them both in the role. In fact, although I find Matthew the sexiest Mr. Darcy and David Rintoul the most accurate, overall it is probably a tie between Laurence Olivier and Colin Firth with Colin Firth leading by a nose. He has his faults, but the 1995 production is simply too good, and his Mr. Darcy too perfect to be ignored.

Say what you will about the superior attention to detail found in today's versions of P&P, the 1940 version positively rocks with the absolute best ensemble work found in any version.

Mary Boland as Mrs Bennet captures her addle brained nature and slavish devotion to the marriage of her daughters in fine style and with a silliness not found in any other film version.

Edna May Oliver is the quintessential Lady Catherine De Bourgh. I really do not care that the part was slightly rewritten to make her less hateful. The most telling feature of Mrs. De Bourgh's character should be that she is silly, and Ms Oliver captures that with aplomb. Further, Lady Catherine was first and foremost a powerhouse of a woman and that describes Edna May Oliver to a tee.

Frieda Inescort is the perfect Caroline Bingley, absolutely chock full of upper crust venom. Caroline is one of the few characters in the book who is not at all silly. She is and should be always the ice goddess, who is unfortunately, a fool who does not realize it. There has never been another Caroline Bingley to compare with Ms. Inescort.

Melville Cooper as the silliest character of them all, and perhaps the silliest character ever written, Mr. Collins, is hilarious.

Edmund Gwenn is wonderful as Father Bennet if not really English sounding at all.

Also of note are Maureen O'Sullivan as the beautiful Jane Bennet, and several others The aforementioned actors were all stage trained and knew how to master a character. This skill truly makes of the ensemble cast in this version a thing of beauty. Oh well, they all are really.

There were some of the cast in the 1940 version who were a bit too vanilla for my taste, such as Bruce Lester as Mr. Bingley, and May Beatty as Mrs. Philips.

This version of course takes liberties with the book, especially in substituting late Victorian fashion for Regency, and a few other things, but on the whole, I find it amazingly well written and well acted, and absolutely perfectly delineating the point of the novel.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Meteor Garden (2001–2002)
Meteor Garden 1 and 2
16 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I gave this a high score, mostly because of WHAT the writers, producers and cast do with the admittedly silly material. To be fair, Romeo and Juliet is one of the dumbest concepts for a love story ever, and was even in the 16th century when Shakespeare wrote it. He stole the plot from some very famous Italian plays and another English writer but still its what he did with it that counts and made it classic.

There is a somewhat similar dynamic here. The storyline may be high school and the emotional wallow is not to be outdone in any medium, but in the particulars, Meteor Garden is absolutely stunning.

Barbie Hsu, as Shan Cai, tends to sound whiny, even for a Chinese, and her verbal delivery is, at first, quite awful. Jerry Yan is a touch better but nothing to write home about. But they and the rest of the cast really improve their acting skills as the series continues.. What Barbie has at the start, however, is an acting presence that puts me in mind of the great silent screen actors of the 1920's. When Dao Ming Si is a bad boy, Barbie can bring him and the entire audience to tears faster than a firecracker tied to a cats tail.

Season 1 is based on the very popular chick Manga series, Hana Yori Dango. It is the second live action effort in that capacity. The series was crafted into a very successful animé series in 1995, and then a live action Japanese movie in 1997.

This Taiwanese series came along in 2001 - 2003, and was followed by an even more brilliant Japanese series, Hana Yori Dango, in 2005 - 2007. Then the Koreans got into the act with KKotboda Namjo (Boys of Flowers) in 2009. Each version has its strength and weaknesses.

This version, the 2001 Taiwan version, is by far, closest to the original manga of all the live action versions, at least Season 1. Season 2 is another matter. The manga series was not finished until 2003, AFTER Liu Xing Hua Yuan (Meteor Garden) had finished filming its second season, so the second season is pretty much whatever the producers directors could throw in. The initial concept is pretty much discarded, as there is almost no action at the school, and Dao Ming Si spends almost the entire second season suffering from amnesia and in another relationship. But this is what for me, makes this version so special. The insanity just got more insane, and the cheese, cheesier, but if you are female, chances are you will spend the entire second season crying your guts out, as I did.

Barbie Hsu comes into her own here, and watching her, watching her beloved Dao Ming Si make love to another chick is astonishingly powerful, emo rocking television, that seems almost designed to play on female DNA like a fiddle. I cried so much I literally got sick. Most fun I've ever had in front of a telly!! If you are an old fashioned estrogen-driven chick like so many of us (twi-hard, thank you) you simply cannot miss this. Meteor Garden will touch your heart.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
yes, better even than the Korean Version
3 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
First let me say that a lot of reviews here came before the second season. There were two. The first season was 9 episodes and the second season, which takes place two years later, adds another 11 episodes, for a total of 20.

Do not miss either season as both are spectacular. LIke others here, I was initially introduced to Boys over Flowers by the Korean version, made several years later, in 2009. That version is called "Kkotboda namja" and I instantly fell in love with it. I especially loved the main character of Goo Joon Pyo, (the Korean version of Doumyoui Tsukasa) played amazingly well by Min-Ho Lee. I wanted more so I got the Japanese original live action version, Hana Yori dango, and watched it.

I would never have believed that anyone could play the role of the spoiled rich boy at the heart of this story as well as Min-Ho Lee. And at first I was sure of it. The star of the Japanese version is actually too short for the role, as it is described in the original manga. But as has been reported by others, Jun Matsumoto stole my heart as the ferocious, hilarious, spoiled and yet amazingly lovable Tsukasa. He breaks your heart. I can imagine no one else in this role.

And not to be forgotten, the heartbreaking Mao Inoue in the role of his Cinderella love, Makino Tsukushi. She looks and is acted exactly as the character is originally described, and when she finally tells a dazed Tsukasa that she loves him at the end of Season 1, it will literally break your heart into a thousand pieces.

The wits and wisdom and tender romance make this the definitive version of Boys Over Flowers, for me. I never thought anything could be better than the Korean version, but for me, this, the Japanese version is tops.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
deeply lovely romantic seies
31 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I generally rate the things I adore a ten and this is no exception ADORE IT. I found it by accident and watched a few minutes and was hooked and have spent two night crying the night away.

I adore Jandi and her handsome loves Goo Joon Pyo and Yoon Ji Hoo. I was totally in Ji Hoo's corner at first but then just fell in love with Joon Pyo.

So now I'm hoping for Jandi and Joon Pyo to make it. But I'm still torn.

This gives lovely insights into Korean society, which I am totally falling in love with also.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In Love with Shakespeare in Love
24 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Shakespeare in Love is that rare movie that is grounded in literature in every sense of the word.

The plot is ingenuous, especially for a modern day film, where plot matters hardly at all. To be popular today, a movie hardly needs a plot; All that it needs, oddly enough in this era of supposed women's liberation, is to be the very antithesis of everything female.

That's right, fair reader. Create a war movie, a spy movie, a brutal movie, that caters to male sensibilities, and you have a well thought of movie, here in IMDb most certainly.

Shakespeare in love is predictably ranked a lowly 7.8 here on IMDb precisely because it trumped Saving Private Ryan, a boring and pedestrian movie that catered to the masculine idea that if a film is about war and men bashing one another about, it somehow reeks of wisdom and insight into the human condition. The truth is, there is ten times more insight contained in the first ten minutes of Shakespeare in love, than in any dozen godfathers or goodfellas, but the male contingent will not hear it.

This era belongs to the men. Females are second class citizens both in the audience and on screen these days. How else can one explain the ratings of drek like Saving Private Ryan and the holy crusade which surrounds it and the perceived slight it received when Shakespeare in Love beat it for best picture of 1998? So as a woman, I feel it my duty to point out that women are not BEING SERVED by the current crop of films, and have not been served for a very long time. Long live films like Shakespeare in Love which dare to be different, and which give hope to those of us who put plot above brutality.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Star Trek: The Paradise Syndrome (1968)
Season 3, Episode 3
One of the best episodes, for me
4 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I refuse to get PC about an episode of Star Trek, so I could care less if an Indian played an Indian, etc. Acting is SUPPOSED to be just that, acting. I would rather see a good, trained actor playing an Indian or an Arab or an Englishman than a bad actor of ANY ancestry. It is a long established tradition of the theater, that a truly good actor can play many roles, and should be lauded for it.

Now on to this episode. It's probably my absolute favorite episode from all three seasons. I find it far more compelling than say, City of the Edge of Forever, which many cite as the best episode ever of Star Trek, whilst simultaneously deriding this episode.

I never understood the double standard. As far as City on the Edge of forever, many seem to dig the power of Kirk's relationship with Edith Keller, but I don't see it. I never got the feeling that Kirk knew Edith Keeler very well, and although he may have been smitten with her, she could not have been considered his "mate" by any stretch of the imagination.

Cue The Paradise Syndrome. As one reviewer here noted, the final two minutes of Miramanee's life bring me to tears, and I will forever hold that it is SHE not Edith, who is the love of James Kirk's life. They had lived together for months as man and wife. She had even conceived his child. So, in my book, Kirk WAS married. I wonder why so many who discredit this episode because of its depiction of native Americans are also quick to dismiss this marriage as valid? Some might say it was because Kirk had lost his memory and was not "Kirk" but I don't buy it. He was still himself inside. He still dreamed of the "Lodge in the sky" (how poetic is THAT!) And he remembered enough of his past life to administer CPR. But I digress:

The episode is beautiful, and the fact that Miramanee carried Kirk's baby is a bit shocking even today. Certainly it was powerful stuff back in 1960's television. It was touchingly and sensitively acted by William Shatner, et al. (Shatner was an award winning Shakespearean Actor before Star Trek, many seem to forget that).

One could really feel the power of his attraction, not just to Miramanee, but to the simplicity and purity of living in a pristine world of Pine forests and roaring campfires; to the sound of the owl at night under a blanket of bright stars unassailed by pollution. This is a world we all came from and it still holds power for many of us, this natural humanity as lived by the native Americans of the planet.

The end is a bit of a triple knock out for Kirk, losing wife, child, and a primordial natural existence far from the cares of his first love, The Starship Enterprise. His bitch mistress who cares not whether his personal life is fulfilled, but whose fate is intertwined with his forever.

A beautiful, lyrical episode that touches my heart. And kudos of the wonderful remastering and high quality presentation.
26 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Green Lantern (2011)
Excellent
23 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not sure why so many people disliked this movie. Perhaps I like it so much precisely because I came to it with VERY low expectations. In general, superhero movies leave me cold. But this one was better than most and Ryan Reynolds was charming in his role.

I thought it was as good if not better than x-men and MUCH better than Thor, which was terrible.

I loved that when people who knew Green Lantern IRL met him, they RECOGNIZED him, because that has always bugged me about superheroes. Take a massively built 6 foot 4 guy, with distinctive bone structure and eyes, and just pop on a pair of glases, or a cowl, and suddenly nobody knows who it is? Thank god this movie avoided that.

Also I loved the look of the myriad races as they appeared on Oa, very cool.

Great flick, and it's too bad there most likely won't be a sequel now.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
beautiful movie, one of the best biopics ever of a President
29 June 2010
I keep waiting to see this again on TMC. I wish I had been around to see these movies when they were first released, on the big screen. How amazing it must have been. There are some good movies released today, but on the whole, they are more childish and less adult and certainly less well scripted than movies like this.

I find it a heart-breaker, and I cry my head off at the end. Charlton Heston and Susan Hayward are magic together, and this movie is magic as well. It points back to a time when yes, there were huge flaws in Americans, racism, etc, but they were on the whole a prouder race, and had more to be proud of, if you ask me.

Charlton Heston and Susan Hayward serve as markers of the definitive pioneer spirit of Americans at that time, and as such they deliver outstanding performances as flawed but real and strong people fueled by the idealism of an America in a time of self-discovery.

I wish they could make movies like this, full of heart and devoid of PC.
15 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Robin Hood (2006–2009)
10/10
epic version of robin hood
3 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This version is like no other Robin Hood. This three year series, starring Jonas Armstrong as Robin Hood and Lucy Griffiths as Marian for the first time, for me, made the love between Robin and Marian, something so real and profound that it tears the heart.

These two amazing actors give the relationship between Robin and Marian depth and pathos all amidst a tongue in cheek framework that at first seems deceptively simple and even amuck. The language is a hybrid of 12th and 21st century, more the latter than the first. Much has been made of Robin's accent, which is pure modern day Lancashire, and it makes him accessible and real in a way no Robin Hood has ever been portrayed.

Robin doesn't wear tights, thank god. But in his very essence as portrayed by Jonas he is charming and brave and very much a man of the people. Robin loves England, the poor, his king, his manservant, Much, and most of all.. Maid Marian.

As the series begins Robin returns from a 5 year tour as the head of the King's guard.. a brilliant fighter whose renown is already legendary as a skilled fighter and the finest practitioner of the Bow ever seen in England. But Robin returns disillusioned, and the England he finds only adds to this disillusionment. He finds an england beset with corruption and tyrrany, and a new Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisborn determined to undermine King Richard.

He also finds a bitter and betrayed Lady Marian, to whom he was engaged as a youth, She seemingly can not forgive him for deserting Locksley, England, her father and herself.

Lucy Griffiths as Maid Marian is absolutely amazing. Her cool reception of Robin Hood when he returns shocks Robin. Her father, Edward, had been the sheriff of Nottingham when Robin left for the Crusades. She has watched the the people taxed and the poor starved by the new sheriff, and she blames Robin for leaving England. Their chemistry of Robin and Marian is the very definition of first love, powerful and quixotic. Robin is in her very early 20's and Marian presumably a few years younger.

This Marian is strong and independent, not a cowering beauty who constantly needs protection. In fact, she has taken on herself to feed the poor by dressing up in men's attire and the poor have named her "The Night Watchman". This is unknown to anyone at first, even Robin Hood, and it shows a another side of Lady Marian.

Robin is very boysih, he is also very much a man. He is charming and heroic, but human and makes mistakes. He loves Marian but has no idea how to woo her. The man who openly declares his love for her is Sir Guy of Gisborne, played very effectively by Richard Armitage. This guy is yes, bad, but also very complex. He DOES know how to woo Lady Marian and he is madly in love with her. Throughout the first series he tells her constantly and gives her presents. Robin never does, until the end of Season 1, when it is perhaps too late. But when Robin and Marian look at each other there is no doubt in the viewers mind of their hidden feelings.

Robin has it all, and Guy is clearly jealous. Robin had been something of a legend before leaving for the Crusades for his skill with a bow. It is said he can kill a man from a mile away with his bow, which Robin doesn't deny. He is handsome and extremely likable, something which Guy is not. In short, Robin is something of the golden boy, and it is precisely this which makes his decision to give up his lands and estates, his money and positon, to become an outlaw, almost shocking in this depiction.

He finds three youths of Locksley are to be executed and himself faced with a choice.. Become and outlaw to save the youngsters of Locksley and lose his lands and any chance of a relationship with Marian..or let the boys die and retains his lands and life but lose his soul.

You can guess the choice he makes. All is told with a sense of deceptive irreverance and fun. But no make mistake, underneath the veneer of laughter and irrerence and jolly good fun can be found some of the most bracing, heartbreaking and deadly beautiful dramatic and romantic moments ever recorded on film. The relationship between Robin and his men, and Robin and Marian goes far deeper than the fun and sometimes wonderfully silly plots would have you think.

By the end of the first season, if you have played close attention, the simply perfect performances of almost every performer, especially Jonas Armstrong, will take your breath away.

The relationship between Robin and Marian develops ergonomically, slowly throughout the first season as they rediscover and perhaps lose each other time and again. The writing which can often seem simple and obvious is anything but.

It is simply breathtaking and I cannot recommend heartily enough this wonderful series. It is not for everyone, but for the romantic, the lover of fun and adventure, for those who think with their hearts and not with history books in hand, this is very worthwhile indeed.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Avatar (2009)
10/10
a thing of beauty - cameron's masterpiece
17 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
10 is much too low a score for this magnificent movie. Cameron has created his masterpiece. This movie will be watched in 100 years, possibly more so than any movie yet made. The Hurt Locker, a very good film, will be just another scratch your head moment when, 50 years from now it is remembered basically as the movie which beat out Avatar for Best Picture, and which proves that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has it's head up it's collective bum.

Mr. Cameron, long known for making blockbusters that are long on entertainment value and craftsmanship, but short on artistry, has now achieved both with Avatar. Avatar is the most entertaining movie that I can recollect seeing...and an artistic chef d'oeuvre which enriches the soul and makes a statement about the course of mankind and our love affair with technology that is not subtle but it sure is effective.

It is true, Avatar is an amalgamation of tried and true Cameron formula and technical prowess. But wait! It is ever so much more. Yes, dear critics, all the Cameron ingredients are there... but along with these ingredients there is such clarity and passion. This is something new, never before seen...and I am not speaking of 3D as good as it is... there is exquisite, aching beauty and the feeling of loss and redemption, that makes one think more of Beowulf than Terminator.

Ah but a man's reach exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for? If heaven is anything like Pandora, count me in. The NA'Vi are nothing more nor less than the absolute perfect incarnation of man and nature, of what we could have been, and of the very best that we cut out of ourselves, of our own indigenous people. Yes they are an idealization. But since when is it wrong to idealize?

The performances resonate, tear and overwhelm us with their reality, be they man or be they memorex. They may be archetypes, but when Jake Sully makes his choice, it is impossible not to cry with joy for him and yet mourn with him for what he must give up.

This is a profundity that I think many simply do not comprehend. Thankfully, judging by the box office, many more do.

Sam Worthington will be a major star, of this there is no question. His Jake Scully is a warrior but he plays the role with a certain sweet power that is astonishing. His final live action monologue is deceptive and heartbreaking. As for the rest of the cast, Zoe Saldana is exquisite as Neytiri, and Sigourney Weaver is professorial perfection as Dr. Grace Augustine.

Thank you Mr. Cameron, for your vision. I wish it could have lasted forever. 3 hours simply is not enough.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Twilight (I) (2008)
10/10
fabulous movie 10 STARS
2 September 2009
I read with a certain amount of sadness the negative comments posted here about this film, and note that most of the criticism pertains to the fact that this movie as one "enlightened" critic put it "has "woman" written all over it". How sad that in this era of supposed female emancipation, that any film that does not cater to the adolescent male need for blood, gore and action, is vilified. This movie is tender, atmospheric and extremely entertaining. It is not another boring special effects movie, a cop movie, a war movie, or any of the other endlessly boring (to me) movies that spewed like bile by Hollywood.

A lot of the vampire fans are totally upset because the Vampires in this movie are not out killing people and because they are not the standard gore film Vampires... I wonder what all the fuss is about? Every Vampire film tends to change and modify the Vampire legend. In some movies they are killed just by exposing them to light. In some movies only a steak to the heart can do the job. There really is no standard behavior for Vampires people make it up... because Vampires don't really exist! It's a STORY people.

So in my mind it's just that this movie is more poetic and is something "girlie girls" of which I am a proud card carrying member, can love. So of course it is despised because I guess all forms of entertainment are expected to cater to males and male tastes.

Anyway I loved it and that is the first time I have been able to stand a movie about Vampires.
15 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wolf (1994)
10/10
NOT a horror movie -- but a movie about horror
12 August 2009
Exquisite, brilliant movie that someday will find its status. I cannot believe the number of people here who simply don't get it. Maybe some of you need an academy or the AFI to tell you when a movie is truly great.

This movie is the only movie about werewolves that I have ever enjoyed. The rest of them absolutely bore me to tears, as do most horror movies.

Jack is great but Michelle Pfeiffer is even better. James Spader is also a stand-out. But the true star is perhaps Mike Nichols whose direction and allegory are tantalizing and sumptuous. Definitely a movie for the thinking man or woman. The script is taut and true and insightful.

I wish Mike Nichols made more like this. His best movie since "The Graduate". Actually I like it more.

10 stars.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Wonderful, if a bit overrated.
9 August 2009
This IS a great film. But it is, unfortunately, over-rated.

I find it fascinating, but the writing does not hold a candle to it's contemporary, All About Eve, nor does the acting. Swanson delivers a very good performance, but it lacks the complete mastery of her craft that Bette Davis delivered as Margo Channing in a much more moving and self-aware performance. Swanson was a great star but she always delivered her lines over the top and frankly I don't think she could have delivered her lines in this movie any other way. She was limited.

The direction is excellent and in cinematography alone can this film be said to be superior to All About Eve.

I never found William Holden particularly interesting as an actor but he does a credible job here.

I find it odd that this movie is so adored but that I guess is all personal taste. I wouldn't put it in my top ten, although it's in my top 100 for sure.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A great movie and a great star
31 July 2009
I do not compare this movie to the book, because it is not faithful to the book. That was never the purpose of the movie. The purpose of this movie was to provide a vehicle for Mickey Rooney who was the biggest box office star in the world from 1939 to 1942. And justifiably so. He has loads of talent. I say has because he is NOT DEAD. I read with horror a post here by someone who assumed that Mickey Rooney was dead and more about that later.

For now the reasons why I think this movie is so good are simple. Beautiful presentation, cinematography, acting, direction and writing. The cast are without exception wonderful. Especially Mickey Rooney who just inhabits the role. The tears in his eyes when told by Rex Ingram that his "pap" is dead....pure gold. Speaking of Rex, his portrayal of Jim is sheer poetry. It isn't easy to bring such depth and layering and nuance to such a character and yet he just does wonders with the very unforgiving role.

Walter Connolly and William Frawley are hilarious and insanely funny and yet curiously terrifying at the same time as the King and the Duke.

The plot does differ a bit from the book but so did and do a lot of movies even today. Many people adore 1937's Captain's Courageous (including me) and are seemingly not bothered by the fact that it veers wildly from the Kipling novel. I am not sure why that is. It feels like some people are actively trying to denigrate Mickey Rooney and certainly he seems to be out of fashion, but someday I do believe people will revisit the man and his movies and realize just how good he was and is.

Which brings me back to Mickey Rooney.. I think its sad when one of the immortal legends of movie history can be so throughly maligned and ignored. At a time when movies mattered, Mickey Rooney stood at the top of the hill. He had it all. Superbe acting talent, as well as an amazing entertainer. To compare his acting with Freddie Bartholomew is unfair to both. Freddie probably was the most talented child actor EVER but he had zero in the entertainment category. He could neither sing, nor dance, and did not have a magnetic personality. In those three areas Mickey stands head and shoulders above him. Mickey can sing, dance, and play dozens of instruments. Only Judy Garland stands above him and that is because she was a better actor and singer by far and Mickey, to his eternal credit, knew this and loved her for it.

I find it heartbreakingly sad that this movie has garnered so few reviews; and more sad that this man who has given so much to the entertainment industry and to movies in particular, can be so ignored by our modern day, talentless, tasteless "entertainment" industry that one can actually be forgiven for assuming he is dead.

I would love to see the over payed, over indulged denizens of the entertainment industry actually pay homage to Mickey Rooney at the Oscars before it is too late and before we truly do lose this living legend forever.

Thank you Mickey Rooney for all that you have given us.
27 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cromwell (1970)
7/10
on the subject of the Scottish Accent of Charles 1
9 April 2008
In response to some nitpicking (deservedly so perhaps)....

Charles 1 is reported to have had a very pronounced Scottish accent and this accent is said to have accounted for his timidity in public speaking.

Also, in this movie, at the point where Cromwell finds he has been "betrayed" by Charles 1, (upon finding the fellow he had hanged was right after all).. it is clearly mentioned "Now we have a second civil war".. or something to that effect.

All in all a very interesting movie, lacking in the budget accorded similar projects at that time.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Great Movie from an era of great movies
20 March 2007
What can be said about this movie that hasn't already been said? Nothing really except to say that this movie stands out even among the greatest films ever made in 1939, the Golden Year of Film. Among the great films produced that year, let me mention just a few: Gone With the Wind, Goodbye Mr. Chips, The Wizard of Oz, Ninotchka, The Four Feathers, Stagecoach, Gunga din, Beau Geste, La Règle du jeu (The rules of the game), Intermezzo.. I could literally go on and on.

Somehow, this movie shines high on that list. The photography is sublime, the music gorgeous and lush, the performances are across the board perfect, especially the performances of Merle Oberon and Lord Laurence Olivier. For those purists, for whom the book cannot be honored unless it is a literally page by page adaptation of the book, this movie perhaps falls short, but for me, it captures the beauty and essence of the book perfectly. Less is sometimes more.

It's hard to say why movies were better then, but I have a few theories.

Perhaps someday it will occur to us that perhaps the studio system was not as bad as we are programmed to believe nowadays. In that bygone era, the studios were run by people who knew how to make movies, and writers, producers, and directors were able to work well enough with studio heads that the movie going audiences were flooded with well written, well acted movies. Movies were more literate, and actors were culled from the boards, and those who did not originate in the theatre scene, were taught elocution and diction by trained professionals, in the tradition of the theatre. Movies reflected this, and film strongly reflected this theatrical background. Actors were not encouraged to write their own dialog, any more than they were encouraged to do so in the theatre, and films, in my opinion, were the better for it.

Today, cinema is celebrity driven. How else can one explain a world in which Ben Affleck makes a few movies and suddenly has a production company and is allowed to produce a movie as awful as Gigli? Unfortunately, this is too often the case nowadays, and this is one reason why I delight in watching movies from those halcyon days of the 1920s thru the 1950's, before movies became the plaything of actors, and actors who didn't even know the word "proscenium" were in charge of the motion picture industry.

Wuthering Heights speaks ably in defense of a movie making industry long gone.... Actors who did not speak as if they had a mouthful of chewing gum, many of whom were actually born in the 19th century and trained in theatre, who knew how people should truly look and behave in pre 20th century costume dramas.

When watching Wuthering Heights, its easy to believe that these people were culled from the 19th Century because they WERE.... its amusing to watch movies today that pretend to be more "faithful" to the spirit of a time more than a century ago, when most actors in them can't even remember a time before cell phones.

At least we have movies like this and they will still be loved long after most modern movies are long forgotten.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Barnacle Bill (1941)
7/10
A Brilliant Film
6 December 2006
This film is long overdue to be rediscovered. Marjorie Main and Wallace Beery are indeed very funny, but they also bring true pathos and more than one lump to the throat during the course of this dear, sweet film.

Marjorie Main is one of my childhood idols, along with the immortal Marie Dressler, and indeed she does seem the spiritual successor to that fabled actress.

She and Wallace Beery would never be stars today, in our plastic world, and we are so much the poorer for it. Wallace Beery plays a character that on the surface has few redeeming qualities and yet its impossible not to love him. Marjorie Main was never better.

If you get the chance, watch this movie.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed