Reviews

I'm fond of 'Space Race' documentaries and "For all Mankind' was a sort of benchmark in that field. This one ranks alongside that one in terms of quality and emotion (I'm a boomer). Interviews with the astronauts Lovell, Borman and Anders tell how the grew up, what motivated them and how they got into the astronaut group. All that is punctuated with personal photos, archival footage and in some cases reenactments of incidents. All good stuff and excellently done.

When they get to the events at Nasa leading up to the Apollo mission (Gemini in particular) it starts to get mesmerizing If you don't know about that period you will be seriously enlightened. The punctuated astronaut interviews amidst the storytelling brings it all down to a human level. Thank you Lovell, Borman and Anders for getting involved in this.

Superior graphics animation to show what archival footage could not, superior restoration of both Nasa and news footage and superior editing make this a must watch for Space fans. Another call out to the composer for making the music enhance the story and not bombastic and overbearing as is usual these days The Director of course deserves kudos for making this picture and thank you to Kickstarter doners for letting this become a reality.

"Thank You Apollo 8 for saving 1968"

Yes, the consensus is that this movie is not very good. It's OK. A passable time filler with not very good acting by the leads - not that they had much to work with. 'Bad' acting in a TV movie doesn't have to put any picture out of court on the entertainment scale, witness another Ludlam TV adaptation: the Bourne Identity with Richard Chamberlain from 1988. Great script, vivid location filming and coherent plot line make for an entertaining watch. But back to this.

A disappointment despite guest stars of which only Jose Ferrer's brief role shows acting chops that can a turn bad dialogue into something memorable. Still, if you like a WW2 period piece with 1970's era fashions you might get into it. The cars are great.

Bergerac. Has to go to London on a mysterious mission from Crozier to do ...what? Both the viewer and Bergerac don't quite know what this mission is to be about, but it becomes apparent much later in the episode. Who can be trusted? Corruption at the highest levels of the MET? What is going on here? Stick with it as it is an unusual storyline.

At this point in its run Bergerac stories are starting to go off the rails into a more violent and less charming storyline. I personally liked the earlier ones better, but this episode is worth watching and NOT 'pointless'. By the end of this series in a couple of years most of the good qualities of "Bergerac" were gone. (IMHO). On to Midsomer. LOL.

Not 'great' but much better than 'not bad'. I always liked A. S. esp. In those Midsomer Murders shows he did and enjoyed seeing him in various other things. I wasn't sure about him as lead detective in another Britain's Got Murder series (so many). But he is very good and so is his sidekick - a very good partnership. It helps to have good scripts and interesting characters to play off of. I liked the first episode enough to check out the other three. They varied of course, but the fourth was way to 'woke' character-wise for my taste. Still, worth anyone's time who likes this genre.

I just saw this and I have to say it's a good portrait of the tempestuous relationship between Martha Gellhorn and Ernest Hemingway. Kidman is outstanding, as usual, and Clive Owen meets her as an equal in his portrait of the macho Hemingway. Yes, there are some slow spots, but this is about a relationship in all it's vagaries so expect a DRAMA, not an action feature (but there IS action too!). The film is a little long but it's not a bore (at least to me). I can't help thinking that 30 or 40 years ago this would have been released to theaters with an expectation of having an audience. If you are interested in these people it's worthwhile viewing.

The other negative reviews are correct in all their aspects. I watched, or rather sat through this episode last night and then came to IMDB to see if my feeling about this episode was correct. Maybe I missed something. I did. An hour and a half's worth of enjoyment. If you are a Morse fan , you will be compelled to see this one, but make sure you have another episode handy to watch.

This was a flop on it's initial release despite the talent that contributed to it. After a few minutes of it's opening I got that unmistakable feeling of "Uh oh, this is going to be a long slog." Luckily it wasn't as long as I initially feared. The subject matter, that depressing B & W film look from the era - the heavy darkness and deep shadows that were considered appropriate for depressing and hopeless subjects is here. I saw this on a DVD and the entire film seemed like a 'Day for Night' shot - no matter the time of day. ( I assume that in theaters on a large screen the gradations of light would be more apparent.)

The actors of course do their best with what they have to work with and Omar Sharif stands out if only because his part has more than one dimension. The other actor who stands out is the boy playing Paco who gets the story going. (He stands toe to toe with Anthony Quinn and Gregory Peck just as he did in In 'It Started in Naples" with Clark Gable and Sophia Loren. Wow,.)

The problem with the film is that the story is not particularly interesting - an aging Spanish Civil War partisan wants to go back and visit his dying mother in Spain 20 years after the War ended, while an old enemy lays a trap for him. A much better film on similar subject matter came out he next year from France - "La Guerre est Finie" with Yves Montand. That one is recommended.

OK , Maybe 9/10 is too high but the average needs to go up.

I found this on blu-ray at my local library (!) and one look at the title caught my attention. I hadn't seen any HK type comedies in a long time so I thought this deserved a chance.

Funny, zany and somewhat scatological in it's humor with a healthy dose of thrills, sentiment and general silliness in the Chow manor, this picture was a pleasant surprise and I found it entertaining to watch. While it is Chinese humor it does translate (maybe not verbally) to those who appreciate comedy. The subtitles come fast and furious to the Western eye but the action speaks for itself.

My only complaint was the excruciatingly long climax to the film, but the CGI was spectacular.

So, A HK comedy made n HK by mainland artists. Recommended.

I'm usually a sucker for these British spy stories so when I saw the good reviews and started watching (tho not expecting another Tinker Tailor) I was expecting to be entertained on at least some level.

Oh dear. 'disappointment' would be too kind a word.

First of all, not too many minutes in, it becomes apparent that the lead actor has no qualities whatsoever. A blank. Well I take that back, he has boyish good looks which is totally out of place for his character. He might be a good actor, but one would never know it from this series. However the bad (or non) acting is not restricted to him. This aspect is spread pretty evenly throughout the cast who all are vying for top honors in this department with the exception being Brian Cox and a couple of the minor characters.

The stupid and uninspired script shows that however talented the writer was on other projects, this kind of story is not up his street. Ridiculous plot development and inane, clichéd dialog does not help the actors who undoubtedly are shown to poor advantage. As someone else pointed out, if the 'tradecraft' of these amateur hour intelligence folks was used in real life (whatever that is), the West would have gone under along time ago.

However, the director should not be held blameless when all else is so bad. Aren't directors supposed to make silk purses...

On a happier note, the photography of the series is very good

Believe me, I hate to dump on all these people as I know they tried to make something good. Unfortunately it did not work out.

Fast moving, very well written show about spies and TV Broadcasting in 50's Britain. The cast is uniformly superlative both as individuals and collectively (sorry about the 'socialist' term - but it is 50's Britain)... sorry, 'Ensemble' is the word. All great down to the smallest parts. Excellent script, good period atmosphere, lighting, photography, set design. There's even some James Bond references which I think is premature but by 1956 Fleming had published three books.

I've never seen Mad Men so I can't relate to the comparisons and I have yet to see Series 2. I watched this on DVD (remember those?) in two 150 minute chunks and both parts held interest from start to finish. Outstanding.

I just viewed this on DVD, not even knowing he had a new movie out, and after wiping away the tears I came back to the conclusion that Stephen Chow is one of the world's greatest cinematic artists. This is a 'kids of all ages' movie for the whole family. Funny, touching and tightly -paced, with an adorable 'creature' that all ET lovers can relate to, CJ7 is the best picture Chow has made in a long time.

I first became aware of Chow when I lived in Hong Kong in the 90's and a friend kept raving about his pictures. I finally rented the God of Cookery and was blown away. Being a westerner there were some obstacles to overcome as I needed to read the variable English subtitles while the visual insanity was going on. Admittedly, it took more than one viewing to take it all in. His scripts had a lot of HK Chinese jokes both verbal and visual that came fast and furious. What was apparent was that his sense of humor transcended the local to the universal. I watched all his films and though they did vary in quality, there was no getting around the fact that Chow is an ORIGINAL.

I confess to not liking some aspects of his work, like the scatological humor and a certain meanness of spirit that permeates his films (very, very little of which is in CJ7) but that is my personal view. None of the above takes away from his comedic greatness.

The films he has made in the last ten years did not strike me as being an the same level as his earlier HK works such as Cookery, Forbidden City Cop, Hail the Judge, the two Monkey King (Chinese Odyssey) films, but all have his brand of zany humor and all are worth searching out. His big international successes, Shaolin Soccer and Kug Fu Hustle did not strike me as anything out of the ordinary from him but they did garner a bigger audience and made him more widely known.

So it was that I approached CJ7 with some trepidation. Another film by a brilliant artist loaded down with money and fame playing it safe and re-hoeing well plowed fields was a disappointment I didn't want to face. I'm happy to say (despite misgivings from other reviewers) that Stephen Chow came through. CJ7 is more emotional and less zany, but in some ways more real than anything he has done before. The fact that Chow took the supporting role puts his achievement on a whole other level (in an interview on the DVD he said that he looked for another actor for his part but they wanted too much money so he decided he could do it cheaper - thank you).

I expect this is a one-of-a-kind film from Stephen Chow, so he deserves all praise for it. My faith in him is restored.

Yeah a really great film.

I never read Thomas Hardy, but I watched this on laser disc due to the widescreen version, Julie Christie, and director John Schlesinger. I was entranced. The cliché 'it builds slowly' would be apropos and well worth the wait. The picture and sound evoke a feeling of timelessness tho set in a specific time that is both real and unreal. The payoff in this approach is that by the time the story begins in earnest, you know the characters and what they are about. Peter Finch, and Alan Bates stand out in an excellent cast. In fact, the character I think about is the Alan Bates one. It's the kind of movie that, once appreciated, can provide a particular 'character-to-remember' to almost anyone. This is due to the level of acting. script, and direction. OK, set design. lighting and photography. I don't want to get into too long a list....

Like a number of other Big Films (epics?)of that era, the word CRAFTSMANSHIP looms large. In every aspect of the picture a feeling of perfection is at work. It's not the perfection of 'oh wow' or 'the sets are amazing'. It's the perfection of everything in service towards making a good, entertaining movie based on a much-loved novel. Well they succeeded. "Crowd" is a perfect DVD movie - hope they do it. It must be seen in wide-screen.

After viewing this film a number of times, I came to the conclusion that this really is "'Darling' in Dorset". "Darling" is in my personal top 10 so it is only a mild criticism. However Christie's character in that one seems close enough to touch in this one. Don't get me wrong, she is brilliant in "Crowd".

A gem, a sleeper and highly recommended.

I first sat through L'Aventura a few years ago when a video store was selling all it's VHS stock out. A highly praised film, a legend among the Art House crowd ( I have retro sensibility) and a film landmark. OK, a song is what I can afford, might as well check it out.

I sat engrossed for over two hours as not much happened to a group of sophisticated, superficial, upper middle class Italians on an outing to a deserted island. Well, something did happen, one of their party disappeared. Better find her! If she's not on the island somebody must try and track her down. After I watched it< I kept returning to it in my mind.

In these days when people decry the lack of memorable dialog in films and the lack of coherent stories, here is one of the greatest films of Cinema history that has neither quality. It has stunning B&W photography and personable actors that seem to be the people they are playing. I read somewhere that this film is now seen as an 'antique' as most artistic breakthroughs seem with the passing of the years. I beg to differ.

The impersonalization of human beings in a rich, decadent culture will never go out of style, especially today when we find ourselves sinking deeper into this ever-thickening soup. Antonioni's genius was to lock into it and through his film-making artistry and refinement portray an aspect of the Western march-of-progress that people are only now beginning to grasp. And he filmed this in 1959! (Maybe Italy was ahead of the curve in those days).

If the above sounds like over-intellectualized nonsense, than so be it. What is certain is that L'Aventura is to Antonioni what Birth of a Nation was to D. W. Griffeth. Not every movie lover will like it, let alone sit through it enraptured - but they should.

Oh yeah, I forgot, it's entertaining.

I just saw this picture courtesy of a local rental store which has a number of Btitish films otherwise not available. Wow!

Absolutely excellent in all departments. Attenborough gives a standout performance as Pinky and is surrounded by a sterling cast working at the same high level. The film is beautifully photographed in a way which gives texture to the story and reality to the characters. This must be one of the top British films of the Forties and can stand beside anything Hollywood was doing at the time (or any time for that matter.)

The script is credited to Graham Greene (based on his Novel) and, the unlikely seeming, Terence Rattigan (Separate Tables, Winslow Boy et al). Without knowing who contributed what to the final screenplay, I can say that it is a beautiful and coherent piece of work that has character development as well as terse and atmospheric dialog that keeps the viewer engrossed and the tension high.

Recommended (especially to fans of film noir)

Judging by the other comments on this site, this episode of the 2 Smiley-BBC productions seems to disappoint some of it's fans. In my opinion, this is only slightly less praiseworthy than Tinker, Tailor and that is due to the previous high standard of its predecessor.

SP has excellent character parts, particularly Bernard Hepton as Tobe Esterhazy, Beryl Reid, and even the maligned Barry Foster as Saul Enderby. (His outstanding scene with Guinness on the roof after the consideration of Smiley's evidence about Karla is outrageously deleted in the Acorn DVD version. It's one one of my favorite moments.) Everyone in this production is outstanding and equal to their forbears in TTSS - almost all of whom are them! The fact that virtually every key person is back reprising their roles says a lot about the quality of this production. Mario Adorf plays another vivid character, Claus Kretschmar. Dammit, every actor is interesting, alive and vivid in this story.

I guess the discrepancy is due to the fact that this is an entirely different sort of thing than TTSS. This also is a detective story but with a different dynamic. Nonetheless the same qualities make this must viewing for every Smiley fan. SP has excellent character parts all of whom add texture to the slow unfolding of this tale. And that is what is good about it - the story unfolds with pieces coming to light after each of Smiley's interviews. (To anyone who has never seen the Smiley stories this might sound like a recipe for boredom, but in fact it is just the opposite. So yeah, you have to pay attention.) Now for the bad news.

The Acorn DVD is a travesty.

With about forty minutes cut and scenes shortened and juxtaposed, this is NOT the Smiley's People that appeared on PBS and the BBC videotape. While the story can be followed and enjoyed to a point, there are moments when the cutting is abrupt and the story jumps with the viewer wondering why some things are happening and 'did I miss something?'. The answer is yes. For example, Villem's part is cut and his reason for going to Hamburg are not explained. The previously mentioned Enderby-Smiley scene is nowhere to be found.

I don't know where or why this particular 'version' of Smiley's People was found or used but it as an extreme disappointment to me and to viewers who are coming new to this film. No wonder it gets such mixed reviews.

With the story stretched to 3 DVDs surely someone should have noticed.

A great film, a very disappointing DVD.

as many others, here, I spent formative and time-consuming afternoons enjoying Bill Kennedy at the Movies on CKLW in the Detroit area.

My time was in the early 60's after my family moved to the Detroit area. Bill was a real character who hosted his afternoon movie show and having worked in Hollywood would reminisce and provide info on whatever picture he was 'showing'. this was back in the day when old movies were inexpensive time-fillers for local stations. During those days there was a morning movie around 8 or 9 AM on one of the other stations. Bill came on at 1 PM and for a while there was 3 Pm movie following Bill on CKLW. In the evening there were movies on at about 8 or 9 and after the late news there would be a late night movie or two following into the wee hours. (They were on different stations.) As a young kid I can't tell you what a treat it was to discover all these old films for the first time for free - albeit with endless commercial breaks. Still, if a picture had something going for it, one could deal with it. My love of films from the 30's and 40's started then. Would that we TV viewers had that today!

In any event I remember Bill wearing these big glasses that were the style then and endlessly putting them on to read and taking them off when he had a point to make. And of course, he was smoking ...can you imagine that today. But the point was that he was knowledgeable about Hollywood, had the dirt, and knew and would have any film or music Celeb that was in town for a chat on his show. I was surprised even then that these 'Stars' would grace a local TV show. Because the movies he showed were about the length of his show and he would talk and do interviews (not to mention the commercials) a two hour movie would often be shown in two parts. I suppose the movies that were shown were probably edited but how were we to know?

The feature and star of the show was Bill Kennedy, so the movie was definitely second on the 'bill' but that was the charm. He was a real personality and talked to his audience as if we were in the room with him. I suspected even then he was a 'drinking man' but that was OK too. As I got older, I had other things to do so I didn't watch him very much, but when I think about it now it was one of the things that I miss most about the Pleistocene age of local television.

Just to echo the the positive comments posted here. (Pick any of them)

If you haven't seen this, where have you been? This is great screen entertainment. 'The kind of movie they don't make any more.'

One of the criticisms (by some) is the melodramatic and over-the-top screenplay which, to me, is one of it's enduring assets. It's indicative of DeMille's greatness that he got the script he wanted and the actors who, with the scenery firmly between their teeth, gave it their best shot - and on target all the way. Like many others, I can laugh at some of the dialog when I'm away, but become an avid believer when I view the picture for the umpteenth time. Is this not great Art?

Another aspect of the picture I noticed (after an embarrassing number of viewings), is that each shot is staged like a Silent Movie. It's none the worse for that as in every respect it is a modern (or at least a 1956 modern) movie. But it's staging might be one of the subconscious contributions to it's timelessness.

Along with the above, notice how few close-ups there are. When DeMille has a close-up it means something and advances the plot. Contemporary film-makers take note!

Also these days we hear a lot about 'ensemble' acting. I guess that means there are more than three people with five or more lines that are involved in the plot and appear together in a few scenes. This is one of many examples of DeMille's penchant for 'ensemble' acting. And with this high-powered cast, ensemble par excellence.

One of the things I didn't notice until later, was that the film was pretty much shot in the studio. The memorable vistas of the Exodus, the "Treasure City" of Seti, and Moses' exile don't take up that much screen time. This is a tribute both to DeMille's storytelling ability (keeping our mind on the subject at hand) and the excellent Art Direction and Set Decoration of Paramount Pictures (I don't think they won any Oscars either). Yet there is never a studio-bound feeling on the part of the viewer. Great cinematic Art indeed. If this story takes place in Ancient Egypt, by God we're going to see Ancient Egypt. And we do.

The story, concept and execution are so Big, that one does not notice that on the big screen the aspect ratio is around 1:1.85. The advantage is there is little or nothing lost on the TV screen. In fact when I saw this after a long while in a movie theater, I only briefly noted that it wasn't as wide as I had expected. If you get a chance to see this in a movie theater - Go.

Finally the biggest tribute I can make to this great picture is that it was Charlton Heston's 'Finest Hour'.

This color remake of Red Dust is great entertainment. With real Star Power of Gable, Gardner, and Kelly, as well as a fine supporting cast, this a fast-moving (well, maybe NOT today's version of fast moving) tale of love, lust and repression on safari in Africa. The director is the legendary John Ford who knows how to handle these things and keep the plot moving. Mogambo is aided immeasurably by the fact that it was filmed on location and, to these eyes,looks like most of the picture is 'on location' except of course for the interiors and a few other scenes. One doesn't really notice the changes that much as Ford's visual eye captures the wide open spaces and the abundant wild-life that abounds in it.

Ava Gardner gives one of her most vibrant performances on screen with a healthy dose of wise cracks and chemistry - especially with Gable who also gives off some of the electricity that he didn't always show in his 50's movies. (But then, he patented the role in Red Dust 20 years earlier. BTW, that film should be checked out too - it's the same, but different) It should also be noted that Grace Kelly, early in her career gives one of her better performances. So with solid support from the minor players, good script, fine direction and great scenery, this one shouldn't be missed by Classic Film fans.

I just finished viewing this on DVD and I kept thinking - can anyone imagine someone making a picture like this these days?

Of course, this film was a product of a time and a place and a sensibility that is now long gone. But be that as it may, this is an excellent film about a married couple who have fallen out of love. OK, no one will be viewing this looking for escapist entertainment. However if you are looking for what the Cinema can do without a blue-screen to enlighten, engross and even (dare I say it) entertain while at the same time shedding some light on human relationships - this film comes highly recommended. Excellent cast too!

With his refinement and cinematic artistry, Antonioni was definitely hitting on all cylinders during the early 60's doing stories that would probably raise a loud 'HUH?' at a Hollywood pitch session - then or now.

While I don't rate this at quite the same level as L'Aventura, this is up there with the best of his films (IMHO).

I've just seen this on a beautiful DVD and I want to echo the positive comments. While not the funniest movie ever made it is amusing and a good family-type picture---assuming that families watch this type of picture these days.

What makes it happen for me is seeing Clark Gable and Sophia Loren together on screen with a beautiful background full of Capri Italy, 1960. The story is pretty basic but {like most good movies}provides a framework, plot situations and dialog- a lot of it in Italian, but still understandable- to keep the action moving and show off the Star Power on screen.There is great chemistry between Loren and Gable as well as co-star Vittorio De Sica and the young kid who plays the boy Nando - a star turn at age 10. Charming,amusing with eye-filling scenery and three legendary cinema personalities. Diverting and entertaining.

I watched this movie because of many of the comments on this film and I thought 'Well, if they think that, than how bad could this be?' Since I liked all the principals involved, I felt why not give it a try.

No two ways about it, it's really bad. The premise, involving Beatty and Hoffman (like Hope/Crosby) is totally untrue to their talents, let alone their screen images,that is where this comedy falls flat. Hoffman can do comedy, Beatty, to save his life, can't. However, Beatty can play the piano and sing, where Hoffman is not as good. The 'funny' songs aren't in my opinion. The plot is like the old skits they used to have on Variety shows. Not to mention that it's pointless and embarrassing. As entertainment, it's a misfire that owes more to a bad Abbot & Costello than the 'Road' Pictures. It's all a shame.

I got the sneaking suspicion that the stars probably had a better time making the movie than audiences had watching it. Talented people were involved in this and look what they came up with.

However I can recommend it to those who watch TV all the time and manage to get a few chuckles on every show.