Reviews

I speak only a little German, so there was a lot in "Wunderland" that I didn't understand. But having been to "Miniatur Wunderland" (Miniature Wonderland) in Hamburg, Germany, I had a clear idea of what they were talking about. It helps that I love the place and consider it one of the top man-made wonders in the world. The film, expertly directed, beautifully photographed and superbly edited, does it proud in showing off some of the extraordinary creations within this miniature land, one in which they are continually adding continents and countries; The Guinness Book of Records lists it as the largest miniature railway in the world. The opening sequence in the film is in itself spectacular.

But the story is fascinating as well. How two twin-brothers who grew up as best friends imagined and created such a fantastical world is a precious story. And can serve as an inspiration. The details are incredible--in Miniature Wunderland's actual layouts as in the film--and there are lots of special moments shared with the viewers: regrets voiced by the brothers' father, the reason behind the graves being shown in one of the church scenes, the collaboration with an Argentinian group of artisans, to name a few.

Miniatur Wunderland has always been a place not to miss. Now there is a film about it that counts also as a must-see. The film is in German (with some Spanish with German voice-over), but, curiously, the end credits were in English, suggesting that maybe the film exists somewhere with English subtitles. If not, it should!

Maybe years from now in the updated biographies of the two superb actors, Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman, someone will explain how these two stars could have allowed this production to be released with their names as executive producers. I love the work of these two men, so it pains me to say the movie showcases the worst performance I have ever seen from either of them. Maybe it's not all their fault, since they had an awful script to work with, and the jagged direction of Stephen Hopkins was uninspired in its missed attempts at being artsy. Nothing felt real about this film--to such an extent that I wondered at one point if they were doing a parody--and viewers were not drawn to, or otherwise interested in, any of the characters. Sorry, but the film is just unwatchable.

The rodeo scenes--well, rodeo clips, I should say--are great fun! They make me want to head out and find a real rodeo somewhere. And in the beginning of the series, the stories seemed okay, too. After all, how can you go wrong with a supporting cast like Warren Oates and Bruce Dern? But as you watch one episode after another, you realize the shows are almost always the same: Super rich people trying to buy everything they want or everyone they need, while treating everybody around them like dirt; the disgruntled youth who will do whatever it takes, good or bad, to make his parent recognize him; the loser father who pushes his kid unrelentingly to achieve the success that he could not. Plenty of lost souls and tough, misguided kids. Very preachy, and repetitively so. The sermonizing goes on and on. And on. Watch the moral dilemmas in broken families that the lead character Stoney Burke finds necessary to help. And consider the morally bankrupt ne'er-do-well played by Warren Oates. What sane people would let someone hang around with them who constantly lied, manipulated, stole from them, and cheated them? This is one series where you might need the "Pause" button just to take a break, but you will certainly need to keep your finger hovering above "Fast Forward." However, in spite of the sanctimonious dialog, incredulous characters and behaviors, and the fact that many episodes begin with a long preview of some of the exact scenes that will appear in the episode, there are two good reasons (besides the rodeo action) that make this show worth watching: the camera work and guest stars. The direction and the way the camera makes use of light and shadow and of foreground, background and perspective, shows a mastering in the days of black and white. And (keeping in mind this was filmed in 1962-63) it's a treat to see so many famous faces in the early period of their careers, including Robert Duvall, Dick Clark, James Coburn, Strother Martin, Carol O'Connor, Ed Asner, Jack Weston, Dyan Cannon, Leonard Nimoy, James Mason, and Cloris Leachman in one of the best performances I've ever seen.

Every character in this period piece, whether odd or eccentric or like somebody you know, is delightful, even if their persona is self-righteous, disagreeable or downright annoying. The quirks and foibles of the town's inhabitants and the strangers passing through make each episode compelling, each its own story. There's a wonderful balance between the lives of the poor folks in the country village of Lark Rise and those of the city folk in Candleford, giving rise to disputes and competitions. The characters, all wonderfully drawn and perfectly played, make this heart-warming, humorous, loving, dramatic saga worth every minute of your time.

My title, "Tortured Criminals," refers not to the torturing of criminals but to the fact that on "Arrest and Trial," many or most of the criminals were tortured souls, people out of step with society. Basically good people whose problems, upbringing or outlook on life led them to a criminal act--maybe just one--or to an acting-out crime spree. These lost souls might be addicts, alcoholics, thrill-seekers, seniors experiencing dementia, misguided youth, all of whom seemed okay when not drunk, on drugs, or otherwise affected at the moment by the idiosyncrasies that set them aside from "normal" people. The in-depth look into the character of these lost souls was the heart of the show. Sometimes it just became too much (for the viewer), too maudlin, too many excuses for the improper behavior, too much theorizing about socialization, rehabilitation, upbringing and family life.

The lead casting was a surprise: Ben Gazzara, who went on to star in "Run for Your Life" immediately after the one-year run of "Arrest and Trial," and Chuck Conners, a former baseball player for the Brooklyn Dodgers (among others) who had just finished a 1958-63 stint as the star of "The Rifleman." They didn't quite fit together, although they didn't actually work together since Gazarra was a cop and Conners a prosecuting or defense attorney. Conners, at 6 ft. 6 in. Towered over everybody and didn't seem to fit in the frame. And after a very iconic role as Lucas McCain, the Rifleman, it is hard for viewers to see him as a lawyer, though his penchant for justice and human kindness remained the same.

The supporting cast reads like a list of up-and-coming Who's Who performers, but an outstanding tour de force was accomplished by Jack Weston in the episode, "Birds of a Feather," in which he donned numerous disguises and played completely different characters; sometimes it took a moment to realize it was the same actor.

The music for "Arrest and Trial" leaned toward piano with orchestral background, and sometimes became a bit much; you either like it our you don't. Many of the episodes were shot in interesting locations, a big plus for the one-season series.

All in all, enjoyable, if you can overlook the over-sentimentalization, ongoing behavioral-theory conversations, and an actor who was constantly hitting his head on the underside of the top of your TV set.

I normally check the reviews of a film before I buy it or go see it, but this time, a friend game me a DVD, so I just went ahead and watched it. Chain Reaction. My reaction got worse and worse as I got into the film. "A willing suspension of disbelief" is one thing, but out-and-out lunacy is something else entirely. Mild-mannered brilliant scientist Keanu Reeves suddenly turns into a super hero, fighting off trained thugs and killers three at a time, outrunning police and FBI without losing breath, and climbing a drawbridge and tall buildings in a single bound. Easily recognized from afar because of his long locks, it never occurs to him to cut his hair and wear a bit of a disguise while he is being pursued. Shame on Morgan Freeman for being associated with such nonsense.

Interesting cinematography, as would be expected in a Welles production, and good noir character, plus Mancini music (always a plus). But this one gets a little weird, with strange, unpleasant figures one step beyond stereotypes. Janet Leigh is mesmerizing, Wells himself is a bit much. Marlene Dietrich has a bit part, but she looks wonderful, and Zsa Zsa Gabor gets guest star billing with only a one-shot appearance of a few seconds. No special credit is given to Dennis Weaver as the slow and slightly looney motel night manager (reminiscent of Hitchcock's Psycho, but that was two years later).

The story is too unbelievable or convoluted, take your pick, but you still find yourself drawn into it, not unlike slowing down on the highway to see the aftermath of a recent car accident off the side of the road.

It certainly isn't a "comedy thriller." I was neither chuckling nor intrigued. It was almost like watching somebody's home movies. Stilted characters and uninspired direction and photography. Maybe it was cool in 1990, but watching it on DVD in 2022 was less interesting than TV channel changing.

I don't like the idea of rating a show where I haven't watched a number of episodes, but if something feels so bad that I can't even get to episode 2, then I've just got to rate it on what I've seen. Bad acting, terrible dialogue, fake period styling, uninteresting characters, feigned intellectuality. My sense of this show can be explained by simply reading all the User Reviews that gave it one star. I was generous in my rating because of the subject matter.

Each half-hour episode is a story about one character--or a whole town--having to make a decision about what's right versus what's most expedient, the safest, or the most profitable. The right decisions are made, usually, such as where, for example, revenge turns to forgiveness. Sure, some of it's sentimental, even maudlin. But the stories feel good, even with their happy endings.

But what makes the show so good are the many character actors such as Parley Baer, Dabbs Greer, Strother Martin, Jack Elam, Denver Pyle, and Harry Lauter, and faces we recognize whose names we don't know. Plus the named faces before they hit their prime: James Garner before Maverick, Lloyd Bridges pre Sea Hunt, David Janssen before The Fugitive, Robert Culp prior to I-Spy, Robert Vaughn before The Man from U. N. C. L. E., Walter Brennan before The Real McCoys, DeForest Kelly before Star Trek, Ray Collins prior to Perry Mason, Tom Tully before The Lineup (aka San Francisco Beat), and Frank Lovejoy before the short-run series Man Against Crime. And all those stars: James Whitmore, Ida Lapino, Ernest Borgnine, Robert Ryan, Beverly Garland, Claude Akins, Rory Calhoun, Ralph Bellamy, Celeste Holm, Denver Pyle, Jack Lemmon, Gloria Talbot, John Payne, Stuart Whitman, Sterling Hayden, George Wallace, Eddie Albert and more. And that's just the first season!

Dick Powell provides interesting historic input at the beginning of each episode, along with a bit of his typical humor, (and he stars in a few episodes, as well).

I grew up watching black and white, and I love it. Photography is good; western towns and sets are like going home to a comfortable bygone era. The music is rich, albeit predictable (you can always tell the bad guy when he enters because of the music). There's drama and suspense, and you leave with a feel-good feeling.

Besides being a fun episode in which Tagg gets bested by--and becomes friends with--a girl, and in which there's some good riding and great fast-running stagecoach scenes, there are lots of familiar faces in this one (familiar, that is, to those of us used to watching tons of old westerns). Besides Bob Woodward as the stagecoach driver, you have the usual bad guys, including Gregg Barton. You'll recognize the face of the stalwart Stanley Andrews, along with William Fawcett, best known for later playing Pete Wilkey in the television series Fury which ran from 1955 through 1960.

When you learn the reason behind the lead male character's failings, you'll wish you had stopped watching after around the fourth episode. A few interesting characters, but mostly superficial ones, not developed. Gratuitous overextended sex scenes did little to further the story. The music was either out of place or out of the appropriate time period. Trying to turn this period-piece soap opera into a morality story by the end is ultimately not successful, and the husband's behavior is laughable, be it by early English standards or ours.

The last thing this great series needs is another review about it. But I can't resist. The emotional content is so powerful, the writing superb, the direction and editing marvelous, making this one of the best shows in years. The humor is also outstanding, with some comic relief diffusing the heartfelt tension. One caveat here: I'm in only the second season, and there have been shows that have soured after the first one-to-three seasons.

The acting is wonderful, and it's amazing how the casting department found terrific clones of the key actors to play roles of their younger characters; the young stars are excellent!

"This is Us" is poignant and engaging. It's a wonderful work of fiction whose stories are probably true for many Americans.

In spite of the many favorable reviews, the is not a film for everyone. I challenge any watcher not under the influence of alcohol or drugs to get through this visual montage without hitting the fast-forward button a number of times. In fact, director Reggio does a lot of the fast-forwarding for you. This film is Reggio at his most self-indulgent. There are some beautiful images, mind you, especially in the beginning (Monument Valley and other gorgeous areas in Utah), but the 82-minute film is best watched in under 20 minutes. Even the explanatory extra feature, though certainly revealing, is way too long.

This contrived and convoluted coincidence-ridden story about so many unhappy or unpleasant or disgruntled or dishonest people starts out okay but then gets twirled up in its own twisted storyline, ending with a ho-hum confession that makes you feel it would have just been better to stop before the final episode. Lots of characters thrown into the middle of this mystery, but in the end, you care only about a couple of them -- and not even the problem-ridden lead detective. Well acted and shot, but the writers need to stick to soap opera. Or was that what this was?

Never before have I found a multiple-award-winning and highly nominated film so painful. Although the sets were wonderful and the acting of the three female leads was excellent, the characters were certainly not people you would want to spend any time with or even know anything about. The repetitive sections of the soundtrack were not music but noise, and were nothing less than irritating. The characters were unpleasant, the sound unpleasant, the story unpleasant -- even if it's based on some modicum of historic truth, it is not a tale worth learning about. In the middle of it, I felt the director was just indulging his whims, and as it dragged on far too long, I lay the blame solely at his feet. The film was a waste of time and I left angry. It was just unpleasant.

How is it possible to have a cast the likes of Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Lily Tomlin, Cher and Joan Plowright (who was excellent), and wind up with a movie drama that's almost laughable? I guess the buck stops at director Franco Zeffirelli. The dialog ran the gamut from mundane to cliché to idiotic. The camera close-ups were suggesting strong emotional content when there wasn't any. The music seemed completely out of place at times, with very moving dramatic classical music at times when, again, there was very little in the way of drama. And the cast? These stellar stars were the worst I've ever seen them (Joan Plowright excepted), with every utterance feeling pushed and overacted, so I can only guess they were directed that way. I felt as if I were watching a comedy, or at lest something filmed for its humor, when, in fact, the subject matter is quite serious. If you want to see it because of this story, then, by all means, have a go. But if your looking for an engrossing film, don't be fooled by the all-star cast -- give this one a miss!

This is a work of fiction based on a book about a real couple. The suggestion is that there must be some truths to what's shown about the groundbreaking work Masters and Johnson did, and you would think there must be something real about the relationships, not only between Masters and Johnson but between many of the other key couples as well. But it seems that little, if anything, is real. It's pure soap opera. When I read the disclaimer after one of the episodes that all the children were fictitious, I knew I had been the subject of a bait-and-switch scheme. If the series had been sold as soap opera drama, based only on the imagination of the writers/directors, I may have enjoyed it a lot more. As is, it practically dishonors the Masters-Johnson name (hence, their work). The characters are not just flawed, they are wooden and emotionally stunted (with the exception of Betty, the most real person). I must admit, however, that I am approaching this series from a different perspective: I spent four years at Washington University and was privileged to be able to hear Masters and Johnson speak. They were smart, savvy, humorous and entertaining. Nothing like the way they're being portrayed (or should I say, "betrayed"?). I watched the series to gain some insight, to learn something, to be taken back to that time period, and to reminisce about the old "Wash U." None of that happened. With all the on-screen sex, Masters of Sex is a show about biology, with no chemistry.