Reviews

Considering all the rave reviews, one would think this movie was something special. I found the film typical Hollywood garbage, incredibly bad on all levels, from a preposterous script to bad casting and unbearable acting (especially by Peter Falk). There is little sense of comic timing and most of the humor attempted is typical Jewish stick, which Arkin overdoes. So why is a dentist in N>Y> living in a mansion that looks like San Simeon, why would he run off on various errands for his imbecilic future in law when he knows hes nuts, and the list goes on. Its not enough to say that this is the point of the film, or some other idiotic rationalization. A good comedy must have some sense of reality to play off, must have an intelligent script, and must have some pathos underlying the comedy. This film, in the inglorious American movie tradition of the last 40 years (with a few exceptions: My Cousin Vinny, Tootsie)is predictably stupid and unfunny unless you believe the zenith of comedy is Neil Simon or Woody Allen. I gave the film one star for some of Arkin's deadpan and another for the possibility the film got better after I turned it off.

A film that presents two sides: the pro gun side and a nebulous other side. Its historical account was written by pro gun types and its analysis is tilted that way from the beginning. No discussion about the gun industry, gun lobby, the Republican party goose stepping to the NRA, the defense industry, the American military industrial complex, the causes of our culture of violence, or any comparison with other countries--the great majority--that have little guns or gun violence. Really a horrible unbalanced film that says nothing. Also, it is unclear just who produced this documentary and who the various commentators are since there is no identification of anybody.I am surprised that PBS approved this film and has shown it, presumably, on the air for a mass audience.

A well-done and beautifully filmed documentary-- inspirational and full of memorable vignettes of such notables as Stewart Udall and the late, great Clem Miller. As a Marin County resident who frequently enjoys the open spaces of West Marin, the seashores of Pt. Reyes, and the parklands of the GGNRA, I highly recommend this historically accurate and riveting account of the struggle of the brave souls who had the foresight to ensure that these lands would be preserved for all of us. As a (mild) critique, I will say that I would have liked the film to show how the work done decades ago inspired later efforts and how it connects with current environmental issues.

Starting with the actors, all were terrible, especially Buscemi, Carrell, and Gandolfini, followed closely by Carrey and the girl. The director had no sense of humor or comic timing and was lost from the start. The script was patched together by a group of morons. The theme was intriguing, but its realization was sophomoric. But, most of all, it was quite boring. This film is not worth ten lines so what am I going to do? suggestions: the four main stars should quit acting, and the director directing, or whatever he calls it. The producer and the company that released it should move to Oregon and make use of their assisted suicide laws. Whew!

Much as I have liked Clooney's performances (Oh Brother) and directing (Good Night), I found his latest effort incredibly boring and predictable. I walked out a few times but in between I did not enjoy one moment of this film, nor did I hear one sentence of interesting dialog, or one moment that had any creative energy to it. as to the acting, which many reviewers liked, I must disagree in that all the major talent gave predictable performances, while the guy playing the protagonist was unappealing. the plot, what there was of it, made no sense, as it seemed to revolve around the hardly scandalous event of two rival campaign strategists meeting. If one watches an intelligent political film like the Best Man, for example, one realizes how far this genre has suffered in recent years, along with politics in general.

This film is virtually unknown in America, but must be considered one of the greatest films of all time. Its a movie that could not have been made here since the censors and right wing hacks would have cut it up left and right. Aside from the great acting, direction, and cinematography is dialog that is so perceptive, witty, and tinged with sarcasm, yet still fresh and amazing after more than six decades. Some examples: --after being told he cannot go for a walk, the boy whispers to Ms. Baines: "I hate you." Then won't apologize, and when sent to his room states: "I don't care". --when he laments the death of his snake and proposes a tombstone heading: "Maacgregor, killed by Mrs. Baines. (pause) And the date." --the prostitute on finding out that the boy is the son of the ambassador: "Oh, I know your daddy."

And the vivid scenes of London then, with little traffic, horse drawn wagons, noir streets; the embassy as a great haunted Gothic symbolic universe. What a film!

I admit that I missed the first half of this film, which perhaps was just as well, since the second part contained too many scenes that made me want to scream. The girl went back and forth so often that I almost retched with disgust. OK, Ryan played some kind of Howard Hughes megalomaniac, and Bel Geddes was his lap dog wife. She eventually leaves him and gets a job as a receptionist--that's where I turned on the film. But the romance between the doctor and her seems unconvincing, and her various return trips to her ex become boring, as does her pathetic pregnancy. The climax of the film makes little sense, capped off by a rather absurd happy(!) ending revealing that her baby was born premature, and died. Well, no doubt, the Hollywood moguls threw that in, but where was Ophuls going anyway? There were some good moments in the part I saw, mostly by Mason, but not enough to make the film a fully integrated and compelling story. Except, it would appear, to Ophuls' auteurs.

The most amazing thing about this film is the number of excellent reviews. Granted its fun to watch Rita do a few numbers, and there are some nice noir touches. But the dialog is so incredibly lame, with Gilda mouthing Freudian nonsense and the threesome repeating ad nauseam that they hate one another, but love one another, then hate....The plot is imbecilic, the acting absurd, the love triangle preposterous, and the editing almost non existent. One could list these missteps but to what avail? If its film noir, you expect a lost of this B type stuff. But lets call a dame a dame, and not make more of her than she's worth. Its possible the film could have been redeemed somewhat if the ending had gone the way the film was heading, but I'm sure the Hollywood moguls stepped in to give it a happy ending, which finished off whatever merit the film had up to then.

One of the worst films about law, or, for that matter, anything else. terrible performances, directing, photography, and most of all, script. Not one trace of realism. the person who wrote and/or directed this disaster has never been in a courtroom. Only And Justice for All is a poorer legal drama. Embarrassingly bad. Anybody who likes this film should have his/her head examined.to make this review comport with the guidelines, this movie stinks, stinks, and stinks. Hollywood formulas gone haywire, and Gene Hackman should be put out to pasture. also, as a lawyer, I am offended by this portrayal of the legal system: actually, its worst than this, but a realistic touch would have nice.

To suggest, as a number of reviews have, that Cooper's acting is wooden is being polite. His words emanate like some parody of a person learning English for the first time, stoned, and in a casket. Granted, some of the lines he is given are terrible ("If I go, you go with me," and about 10 variations of this), but he is supposed to be an actor. At least, the others give some flair to their performance, but Coop was clueless. This is what happens when you get a Republican to play a Hemingway hero in the Spanish Civil War: a truly treasonous performance. As much as I like him in some pictures, such as High Noon, his acting or whatever you call it in FWTBT is deader than Monty Python's Norwegian Blue.

The Trouble with Harry is the trouble with Hollywood, the fact that the right-wing timid moguls bowed to reactionary forces and drove out much of the creativity from the movies. Their code ensured that nothing unpleasant or amoral, in their eyes, would be allowed into the cinema, so anything with an edge, or against the grain, or left of center was watered down or erased from films. All of this culminated with the Anti communist Witch Hunt which removed the last vestiges of talent, honesty, and integrity, but preserved for us such hypocrites as R Reagan. The reason many of us like the film noir is that this conservative tendency was less noticeable in the dark crime melodramas of the late 40'a and early 50's since no one cared that much about B movies. Still, when Hollywood had a chance, like in the ending in this film, they would ruin a film. In fact, censorship and its companion greed still rules American films, almost without exception.

This film is remarkable on many levels, but two stand out: 1) the realistic portrayal of the events in Riga, wherein thousands of Jews were massacred by the Nazis, and 2) the fact that the "butcher" of these events in the film was not a fictional ploy but an actual SS officer named, as in the film, Rosschmann. The latter point is of interest, since the film provoked a world wide hunt for this murderer, who was located in South America, and who then fled to Paraguay where he died in 1977. The first part of the film is near perfect, though it gets more melodramatic in the latter part, with a number of unconvincing dramatic events added. One example: the journalist(Voight)attacking the burly professional hit man sent to kill him, and then actually winning a hand to hand struggle with him.

While I found the film mildly entertaining, I was bothered by what I consider a very unconvincing performance by N. Watts. I liked her in The Painted Veil, but she is really miscast here, and spends most of the time in walking around on high heels, trying to be perky and important, but without giving us a feeling that she is well educated and a veteran agent. There are other problems with the facts and the usual Hollywood approach to various subjects--wooden showing of family life, unrealistic view of CIA operations, etc. Didn't get to see enough of Sam Shepard. Kudos for presenting the story though, good foreign footage, and another fine performance by Penn.

There are major problems with this film, both regarding accuracy and dramatic tension, among which are: 1)for the film to work we must believe that the accused is not guilty,, and 2) we must understand why his sister felt a need to become a lawyer to save him. The film does not develop either point successfully and thus fails totally. first of all, the accused is presented as a loser, and a violent one at that, with little in the way of redeeming features, with an inferred motive and no showing of alibi. There is no coherent reason given on why his two wives/girlfriends would both accuse him. Even more important, why did his sister believe him to be not guilty, other than because he was her brother. As it turns out, from the facts of the case, there was more evidence, not presented in the movie, that would have convicted the guy, not the least of which he had in his possession a piece of jewelry belonging to the murdered woman, and had vowed to kill her. He was also shown to be even more violent than presented, having recently committed and been convicted of other violent crime. The brutality of the murder strongly suggests someone with a motive, and no showing of anyone else with such motive other than the accused. The film shows recantations by his partners, but the record does not support that this occurred. Even if it did, such recantations are problematic from people close to the accused years after the fact. As to his sister's commitment to becoming a lawyer, this status did not really affect the case. Anyone could have pushed for the DNA evidence and located it and I question if the dramatic presentation really occurred. Even if it did, it might have been cheaper to hire a lawyer than to spend 3 years at law school. Finally, the DNA did not, i repeat, did not, mean he was innocent. It merely meant that the DNA found was not his, according to the test. Even if we assume the test was correct, it might have been that of an accomplice. The DA was willing to retry, but politics got in the way. I doubt that the vicious portrayal of the attorney general was accurate either. Finally, since this guy killed himself six months after he was released, which the movie also conveniently fails to mention, this is suggestive that maybe he knew who the killer was, and he decided to do away with him. Also any portrayal of Barry Scheck as a hero is disquieting since I remember quite well his disgusting performance defending OJ Simpson and trying to convince the dimwits on the jury that the blood evidence and DNA was contaminated or that the police framed OJ. Oh sure!

Well, what can one say, and, in any event, who would read this review at this point anyway. Even though the first scene had some perverse interest, after that I skipped thru it to the end, but still couldn't avoid 1.) Brad Pitt doing one of the worst performances of all time; 2) a whole lot of scalping by the US team, filmed with obvious relish and disgusting detail by the psychopathic director; and 3)a total and extremely boring and unfunny rewrite of history. This film could only appeal to serial killers and the ilk who like QT. Whew! The real question is how can people watch and enjoy this rubbish. Since there have been few if any good films produced in the last decade, I guess Americans et al. are starved for entertainment. Still, watching such violence makes me again believe that a good % of viewers are sadists, with the assumption that most of these are young men since I cannot b3eliev that a woman could sit through this tripe.

I saw about ten minutes of this on TV tonight, hearing that it was funny. Whew! Directed by one of Hollywood's middle school geeks, Harold Ramis, this film was an attempt, it would appear, to make a film for 12 year old boys with collective IQs about as high as a gopher. It was gross without being funny, a disgusting performance by Dangerfield, supported by Chevy's and Bill Murray's worst performances of all their movies. The rest of the cast was pathetic. The real question is, how could anyone, I mean anyone--over 12--admire this film. Its rated as 73, the same as the finest American comedy of the last 30 years, "My Cousin Vinny". All I can say is I agree with Bill Maher, America is filled with idiots.

This is an excellent film on many levels, but one overlooked aspect is the role of the organic health food addict/Army shrink and performance by Eddie Albert. Albert had an unusual background and career, but his environmental commitment (and that of his son Edward)was quite impressive. It seems he was one of the first active celebrity environmentalists, and perhaps more than that, if this role is any indication. As far as I know, this is the first time Hollywood ever presented--let alone mentioned--a major character who was into organic foods, i.e., into the environment on a higher level. And it turns out that the actor was that way in real life, so perhaps it may have impacted on the part. In any event, I don't know if there has been a film role since then pushing the organic food message, and in such a delightful way. Moreover, it gave Albert a chance, rare as it was, to demonstrate his considerable comic talents, along with the rest of the gang.

If you get more than twenty minutes into this film, you are one committed movie goer--but you should be committed elsewhere. This film about a Nazi sub crew stranded in Hudson's Bay (as if) was so unrealistic and poorly filmed that I was waiting for Nanook of the North to save the day. Unfortunately along came a French Canadian with a lumberman's shirt on played atrociously by L. Olivier and with one fell swoop I began thinking of the Pythons' "I'M a Lumberman...." Well, as it turns out, the Nazis actually did land in Canada once during the war to place a weather station in Labrador, that stopped working after a few days. As suggested, this is more than can be said for this film. Cheers to anyone who lasts longer.

I looked forward to seeing a dramatization of the last years of Tolstoy's life, especially having seen the ten minute clip on you tube which was a composite documentary newsreel from those years.The newsreel footage showed Tolstoy walking around, riding a horse, getting on a train, etc. This was more interesting than the film version. While the acting was OK, there was no dramatic tension in the film, and seemingly no purpose for making the movie. As other reviewers have noted, there was no attempt to show Tolstoy the author, the visionary, the great old man of Russia. It was simply a soap opera with Helen Mirren shrieking every so often and Plummer mouthing some nonsense. No depth at all. It put me to sleep five or six times. I think the director saw the newsreel and fashioned the film in that vein without any understanding of the author or the events of that time. A real disaster.

This is one of the few American films that attempted to deal with adults in a contemporary setting, without sex, violence, death, slapstick, saccharine, or any of the other standard Hollywood gimmicks. It also focused on real events, real problems, and a cross section of life. These aspects alone would rate some points. Combined with great direction, acting, script, music, et al., it amazes me how anyone could not like it. But in this age of Scorsese and Tarantino, Jolie and Pitt, it is hard to fathom what makes some viewers tick. The question is, if one does not like this film, what are we left with in this genre: oh, I forgot, Kill Bill, Vol. 3 will be out soon!

This is yet another Hollywood prefab chick flick with no particular interest other than seeing M. Streep again in a lackluster performance, followed by a bloated A. Baldwin picking up an easy paycheck. The script is predictable and pedestrian, the comic timing very poor, and the supporting cast of the usual cute kids nauseatingly obnoxious. S. Martin is the only one cast well (since Ms. S. looks ten years older than Mr. B) but really doesn't add much comic relief. The worst thing about this film is its shallowness and lack of any real pathos or feeling for humanity, in any real sense. But all the women I know liked it! Anyway, can do without seeing Meryl for a while.

Its not that this film had no interest, or was poorly directed or acted. The problem was, in my mind, that the script lacked any real attempt at a realistic portrayal of real people. I don't think many, if any parents, would let their daughter run off like that, and even if they did, would a girl of such pronounced moral and intellectual pretenses be so easily seduced by such phonies. Even if all this rings true for some, when she decided to stay with them, after first deciding to flee, I left the theater. My feeling was why should I watch more of this garbage? It had been unreal up to that time, but at least her initial decision to leave seemed genuine, and sensible. then, all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, and without any sexual or other apparent reasons, she stays. Well fine, but so what> Do I need to watch her go off with some grifters and be "educated". If you have nothing better to do, which I guess is the case for many, continue with this type of education.

The problems with this film are many, but I will try to mention the most glaring and bothersome ones. First of all, while the theme suggests a number of vignettes about Manhattan life, the reality was that everything, as usual in movies and TV, was about something bizarre, usually of a sexual nature. The story lines were thin or nonexistent, and virtually every scene, camera shot, line of dialog, and expressed emotion was absolutely, and totally fake. It finally reached a point after an hour of so of mind numbing garbage that I walked out (something no uncommon for me in recent years.) I would have guessed the fi9lm was directed by some wannabe auteur drop outs from some 3rd rate film studies program, but I believe the (at one time, pre-Amelia, talented)director Mira Nair took part in this disgusting travesty, so perhaps the directorial talent in America has descended en masse into the cesspool.