Reviews

35 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Morgan! (1966)
3/10
Nearly 100% unfunny
5 May 2012
Four stars because even though I remember the '60s, I definitely was there. Morgan! was a hot ticket back then, said to be one of the most brilliant wacky satires ever filmed.

The reason: stylish and quirky direction, elegant and very fashionable Vanessa Redgrave, energetic David Warner, the exact opposite in looks and behavior of the Hollywood leading man.

Unfortunately, that isn't enough to make a decent movie, though millions wanted to believe it was. The alleged humor isn't "over-the-top," it's forced and artificial. There is nothing engaging about the title character: he really is insane and potentially dangerous. His wife's love-hate relationship with him (make that "amusement-hate") is not only inexplicable by reason, it doesn't even contribute to the plot (such as it is). It's just a circumstance that wants to wow you but doesn't. The Trotskyite-Stalinist feud between Morgan and his mom seems like another pointless gimmick, though I suppose making an English Communist the main character near the height of the Cold War was calculated to give the movie some kind of edgy, transgressive feel. Like most everything else here, however, it becomes tedious and annoying after the first fifteen minutes.

If you can possibly stay awake, it probably means you're loving it. I doubt there's a middle ground.

A few months after the premier of "Morgan" came the American "Lord Love a Duck." It's got some serious flaws too, but if irreverent '60s, pre-hippie, madcap comedy-satire is what you want, I'd try that one. At least part of the time it's crazy fun.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Anonymous (I) (2011)
3/10
Bard thou never wert
8 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
It's just possible that this movie takes fewer liberties with English history than did William Shakespeare in his history plays. (That's "possible," not "likely.") But here's the difference: the history plays were written by William Shakespeare, and this movie was written by John Orloff.

If you really believe that the Earl of Oxford was the "real" Shakespeare, I have a bridge in San Francisco Bay you might want to buy from me. But that's for later. Meanwhile, "Anonymous" has as much to do with a serious presentation of the "case for Oxford" as it has for the "case for alien abduction." In Orloff's version, Oxford can't help but write one brilliant play after another because he hears voices in his head. Now there's a premise for another movie, maybe with Shakespeare hearing voices, etc., etc., but nothing comes of it here. It's just, you know, voices in his head. Also, he's somehow squandered most of his family's wealth, though it's not explained how. Quills, ink, and paper seem to be his only expenses.

Since Oxford is a noble, he's not "allowed" to write plays. So to get his creations in front of the public, he tries to get Ben Jonson to front for him. Jonson thinks the plays just aren't him, so when the drunken, obnoxious, illiterate, whoring, egotistical, sleazy-looking ham actor Shakespeare offers to take on the job, Ben agrees.

Oxford makes sure that every play he writes has a political message, and that message is usually to subvert Lord Cecil, Oxford's father-in-law and the real brains behind the throne now that Elizabeth is half senile. Why? Why, to keep King James of Scotland from inheriting the realm as Liz wishes. But what's wrong with that? Who knows! Not John Orloff! All he knows is that Oxford wants the Queen's lover, Essex, on the throne. Why Essex? Beats me. Would Essex make a better king? The movie doesn't say, so I guess the answer is obviously yes.

SPOILER: for no reason at all except to make you go "Whoa! Dude!" Oxford turns out to be Liz's bastard son. As well as her other lover! Whoa!! Dude!! Have you ever seen a Shakespeare movie like this? I doubt it! After this revelation, and after Essex has his head removed by the Royal Executioner after the theater audience has stormed the palace waving pitchforks (which they must have brought with them to the show), Oxford dies for no particular reason. But Ben saves the plays. And King James loves them! (Lucky for us all, Ben was the only rioter in the front line to survive bullets and cannon balls fired point blank.) Expressive acting by Derek Jacobi as the Prologue (a device cleverly borrowed from "Henry V") shows up everybody else as just pretty good. Fine costumes and sets - when you can see them on the unusually dark screen. No rap or grunge in the soundtrack.

I hear you saying, "Hey, jerkface, it's just entertainment!" So very true if you're entertained by a pretentious plot that makes little sense on it own terms and that wildly distorts history without making it any more interesting. (The mammoth stampede down the ramp of the Great Pyramid in director Emmerich's "10,000 BC" was one of the great all-time movie scenes, in my opinion.) What's a little bit creepy is that "Anonymous" is openly devoted to showing the real William Shakespeare as a contemptible idiot and Elizabeth I as lacking all notable qualities except lifelong horniness. I guess there's a demand for films that depict history's greats as "really" having been corrupt, disgusting louts. Why is that?

Best scenes: Oxford recites or composes a sonnet while Liz gives him oral sex. Later, Shakespeare (murderer of Christopher Marlowe) secretly tails Oxford disguised in a fake beard-and-nose on a stick, and hides behind a chicken so he won't be seen.
10 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Passchendaele (2008)
3/10
Passion Dale - in more ways than one
29 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Here's what you'll need to believe - for starters - in order to enjoy this movie:

1. A Canadian soldier gets a medal - promptly - simply for bayoneting a German in the head.

2. Though badly wounded, he deserts, is caught, and somehow winds up back in Canada even though he's being threatened with execution as a deserter.

3. On top of that, all three of his brothers have already been killed (as in "Saving Private Ryan"), and when he's reported missing his mother "dies of a broken heart." And that's just the first fifteen minutes! (I left out the part where a geeky blue-collar kid has sex with the gorgeous daughter of Calgary's leading physician on a table in the newspaper office where he works - in super-prudish, pre-Pill 1917. And the daughter wears a see-through blouse to a formal dinner party. The word "passion" is prominently mentioned a couple of times.) There's an evil, cowardly English officer, who is a worse villain than any German. There's the hero's nurse sweetie who, in one night, kicks morphine cold-turkey with his help. And there's the fact that all four main characters wind up together at Passchendaele.

Whether or not you've seen "The Passion (get it?) of the Christ," you won't be ready for the explosion that magically blows the geeky guy out of a German trench into an upright, barbed-wire-and-wooden-plank crucifixion. Honest! Then the hero crosses 200 yards of swampy No Man's Land under fire from a hundred German guns - unhurt except for blood across his forehead. Then he hauls the cross, with his pal still writhing, back to Canadian lines. A bloody miracle! You get two Christs instead of one! A German officer nods his head in sadness and approval.

The evil Englishman has already been blown up by a different magic shell that leaves the half-dozen Canadians around him unfazed and untouched. He's just uttered the cowardly words, "If the enemy breaks through, we'll be in DANGER!" The final scene of endless crosses is ripped off from the moving finale of "Oh What a Lovely War!" (1969).

There's more foolishness that I won't even mention.

The battle scenes are effective. But there *is* that crucifixion thing.

And you won't learn much about Passchendaele, except that it was awful. A postscript tells us that the Germans retook the ground a few months later, so the effort was futile. That's as close as this movie gets to being informative.

The postscript doesn't mention, though, that Allied soldiers won the war, and as a result Germany became a democracy for a number of years - until Hitler showed up.

This is bad soap opera. No more, no less. And girls - you get to see a guy's ass close up while he's having sex!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
White Cargo (1942)
8/10
Great Trash Sequel to Heart of Darkness
22 October 2010
Hollywood used to turn out some great bad movies, and "White Cargo" is one of the greatest and baddest. People who complain that it's unrealistic are missing the boat. Except for the jungle heat, the isolation of the white guys, and location shots of what looks like a rubber plantation, this movie doesn't even pretend to be real. It's pulp fiction of the old school. You watch it to forget your troubles, and if you're like me (a guy), Hedy Lamar will make 'em vanish like bubbles. Because it combines shameless sensationalism and with solid melodramatic performances (especially from Lamar, Pidgeon, and Wizard-of-Oz Frank Morgan), even my wife liked it.

OK, Hollywood and America were a lot more racist in 1942 than now. We get it. But this movie isn't about race, imperialism, natural resources, or any of those other trendy topics, it's about the sensual power of Tondelayo.

Goofy makeup and all, it would have been tough to find any actress of any ethnicity who could top Hedy Lamar in the leading role. Tondie, an incarnation of Eve like you wouldn't believe, unites all misogynist female stereotypes into one purring package: she's mysterious, wild, stupid, primitive, insincere, manipulative, beautiful, evil, greedy, relentless, sadomasochistic, homicidal, and did I mention sexy? That all adds up to "irresitible" in the logic of this movie. The fact that she's the only woman within a hundred miles is certainly part of her charm.

And yes, as she drives Richard Carlson batty, Hedy Lamar really communicates all those things with her movements, her delivery, and, toughest to do, her glances. Her eyes alone reveal her mind switching from evil to stupid to greedy in rapid succession.

"White Cargo" is a demented fantasy sequel to Conrad's great story "Heart of Darkness," or an academic poindexter could argue that it is. But ignore that. Blatant junk movies today are pretentious, gory, and tedious. But not "White Cargo." It isn't as complicated or ingenious as "Gilda," but it comes close enough on the Meter of Marvelous Trash. Great fun if you love the ridiculous!
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Great American War Movie
30 August 2010
What makes a great movie? Script, performances, direction, pace, credibility (watching it makes you *believe,* even if it's sf). An important theme, like the readjusment of wounded combat vets, doesn't hurt.

"Pride of the Marines" has all these things. Star John Garfield, who specialized (mostly) in blue-collar roles, turns in possibly his finest performance; the rest of the cast is also excellent. Albert Maltz's screenplay deservedly got an Oscar nomination. The brief combat scenes are absolutely believable and the story never slows down - a tribute to Delmer Daves' directorial talents. "The Best Years of Our Lives" is far better known as a moving drama of returning WWII veterans, but "Pride of the Marines" was released almost three months earlier and is every bit as dramatic.

There's nothing phony about this great movie, including the heroism - for which the real Al Schmid, LeRoy Diamond, and Johnny Rivers (KIA) were all awarded the Navy Cross.

"Pride of the Marines" finally came out on DVD in 2009. I haven't viewed that product, but you owe it to yourself to see this movie at least once.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Moby Dick (1956)
10/10
Incomparable adaptation
5 July 2010
Of course the critics panned "Moby Dick" in 1956, just over a century after the book's appearance: they weren't ready for so adept a distillation of Melville's ruminative, free-associational quasi-novel. What they seem to have expected, even wanted, was a two-fisted sea saga with native girls in leis.

Not that Huston's film lacks action. There's plenty. But there's at least as much philosophical complexity, which means heavy-duty talk (all of it thought-provoking even if not entirely sensible) and a lot of significant throwaway lines that you'll overlook if you're unfamiliar with Melville (Ex.: "If God were a fish, he'd be a whale!") I first saw this movie on ABC-TV in 1966, and I watch it every time it comes on. In comparison with the original, which I once got to see in a theater, TCM's print needs big-time restoration. The original colors were somewhat muted to give the images an "antique" feel, but as shown on TV today (tonight, in fact) they are washed out at best and just weird at worst.

A short review can't do justice to this magnificent film, which includes one of Orson Welles's best later performances and one of Gregory Peck's best, period (no matter what he said later). The early scenes ashore, shot at Mystic Seaport, Conn. (the name is coincidentally perfect), are loaded with period atmosphere. Getting in the proper frame of mind may be a challenge for fans who haven't passed American Lit 201, but the right frame of mind and the ability to use more than just the ocular parts of your head truly is key.

The film's approach and intellectuality can be summed up by two quotes. First, the one above. The second (possibly the greatest line screenwriter Ray Bradbury ever wrote) comes when crazy Captain Ahab points to his charts and says, "Moby Dick will surface here!" His finger goes directly to Bikini Atoll, site of the first test of a hydrogen bomb. Not in the book, but completely in line with Melville's dark vision of humanity and the universe.

One of the best-crafted movies ever made, IMHO. Time for the gurus to quit raving about, say, "Grand Illusion," and take another look at a real masterpiece.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I Walked Out. Forty Years Later I Walked Out Again.
14 August 2009
Simply and absolutely one of the most boring and self-important films ever made. When it came out in 1967, director Richard Lester made no secret of his conviction that he'd produced the greatest antiwar statement since 1930's All Quiet on the Western Front. In reality, it's one of the worst films of any kind since 1930.

Here's Lester's antiwar strategy. Take a small number of British soldiers in a wear against Hitler and Nazism and show them to be a bunch of fools, cowards, and lunatics. Show that their mission - to build a cricket-pitch in enemy territory - is absurd. Show John Lennon's idiot minor character bloodily killed.

That's it. Doesn't it make you hate war? Doesn't it prove that soldiers are suckers? Doesn't it make you want to protest Vietnam? Well, maybe all Richard Lester really wanted to do was make an amusing service comedy. Maybe his self-promoting comments were just trying to cash in on the antiwar feelings of the day.

In that case he still failed. There are more laughs in five minutes of "Sgt. Bilko" than in this entire movie.

I remember vividly being unable to stay awake watching this turkey in the theater forty years ago. I walked out, even though I'd paid good money. (Only two other movies in my entire life have had such a sleep-inducing effect on me, and "How I Won the War" may well be the worst of three.) A few years back somebody gave me the video. With access to coffee I managed to stay awake a just little longer. When I snapped awake I shut the thing off.

Way back in 1967 I actually read Patrick Ryan's comic novel that was the basis of this film. It was funny in an aimless kind of way.

This movie is unfunny in each and every way.
21 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
You don't gotta believe it. You do gotta like it.
12 August 2009
Clark Gable plays a really sweet, caring guy who just happens to be a top mobster and cold-blooded killer. William Powell, less than month before his first appearance as wealthy gumshoe Nick Charles in "The Thin Man," is the uncorruptible Manhattan DA who saved Gable's life when they were kids. And Myrna Loy, less than a month before she first appeared as wealthy gumshoe-ette Nora Charles, is the Woman Who Loves Them Both.

Gable finds himself in a quandary: should he let old buddy Powell lose the big election over a dirty lie? Or should he risk the chair to help him?

Decisions, decisions.

How times have changed: a chiseler who's borrowed a bundle from Gable pleads, "I thought I could pay, Blackie! But I ain't got the dough! Please lemme have just a little more time! A couple more days!"

Gable snarls, "I'll give you more time! You got two months! You'll pay then...or else!"

Wow! Two months with no penalty! You can't a get a deal like that from your own bank! That's the kind of movie this is.

So how can it be as good as it is? Gable, Loy, and Powell. Like so many old-time stars, G and P learned early on how to play just one character each (let's call them Rhett and Nick) and they played them to perfection till they quit making movies. Loy was a little more flexible (check out The Best Years of Our Lives), but here she is, Nora Charles before "Nora" was even born.

Nat Pendleton plays one of his trademark goons, and in a small role the Harlowesque Muriel Evans shines, almost literally, as Tootsie.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Seventh Stream (2001 TV Movie)
8/10
Outstanding, low-key Irish legend
9 August 2009
"The Seventh Stream" is beautifully filmed with a deeply romantic score and a story comes from the same vein of Irish folklore that inspired 1994's "Secret of Roan Inish," another good family movie but not, I think, quite as atmospheric or nearly as moving as "The Seventh Stream." Both films are based on the legend of the selkies - gray seals who sometimes take human form, come ashore and interact with humans. The production values are very superior for a made-for-cable flick.

Saffron Burrows is nothing short of remarkable as the seal-woman. Viewers drugged by the over-the-top acting styles of so many movies may find her performance too subdued, too quiet, but that's their problem. Some kind of emotion is constantly flickering across her face, which is amazingly expressive. She's by turns mysterious, cold, curious, sultry, beautiful, vulnerable, weird - everything you'd expect to see in a seal-girl.

In a less fascinating role, Scott Glenn too is convincing and sympathetic as the hardscrabble middle-aged fisherman to whom the selkie turns for help. There's a lot of talk about the human heart, none of it sappy. Aside from one or two minor cultural goofs that few will care about, the film depicts pretty plausibly life in an Irish fishing village a hundred years ago.

There are also one or two minor directorial lapses. When fate deals unkindly with one of the characters, he cries out "Nooooooooooooooo!" in ultra slow-mo. Just like in The Simpsons and elsewhere. But the embarrassing moments take up about two minutes in total, and none is as bad as that.The rest of the film could hardly be improved on as a serious fairy tale for the whole family, unless your family is deeply into pro wrestling and stuff like that.

One of the most moving fantasy films I've seen, definitely not sugary or maudlin, and not oozing with CGI.

Check it out! I bet they were going to call it originally "The Seventh Seal," but found out that title was taken.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
M*A*S*H (1970)
3/10
Anti-war? Gimme a break!
9 August 2009
I thought Altman's "Nashville" was brilliant. "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" was a solidly "different" western. MASH, on the other hand, manages to bore and rankle at the same time.

What's right with MASH: ingenious innovations in technique, like a loudspeaker within the movie helping to announce the final credits and a comic eating scene shot to resemble the layout of Da Vinci's "Last Supper." Clever! Yawn. (These bits neither advance the plot, contribute to characterization or ambiance, or do anything except exist. Some viewers will laugh at the moment of recognition, but playful directing doesn't make a good film all by itself.) Another possible innovation is the use of a Simon&Garfunkly theme ("Suicide is Painless") that has no bearing on the movie or much else in the world. If Altman thought this bit up all by himself, it's clever. Yawn.

The cast does the best they can with so little of interest to work with.

I didn't find MASH funny, for reasons that many others have mentioned. Its worst sin against humor, to my mind, is that the "fun" here is based entirely on a the antics of a few angry and arrogant narcissists. I'd have called them "psychos," but that would make them sound too interesting. The fact that they're also brilliant surgeons doesn't outweigh their mental-health issues, unless you get a lump in the throat just watching SOB's save lives.

"All Quiet on the Western Front" is anti-war. "Paths of Glory" is anti-war. You don't need to be told that because they show war itself as cruel and dehumanizing, right up on the big screen.

"MASH" is not antiwar, and would be pretty poor even it were, because most of the dehumanizing is done by the protagonists themselves. It was *marketed* as antiwar (something quite different) because being antiwar *sold* in 1970. The posters that showed a peace sign morphing into a leggy babe had nothing to do with the movie except to convince people that it was "anti-war" and therefore great, sexy, hilarious, and more than worth the price of admission. In fact, MASH is none of these things.

Hawkeye, Trapper John, and their buddies are not against war or even *the* war. They do and say nothing about any war. All they do and say is whatever they feel like, tormenting female nurses, outsmarting superior officers, taking their petty vengeance and unmotivated peevishness out on everyone around them. Sound funny? Wrong. The Marx Bros. might have been able to pull it off, but not this crew.

MASH is anti-authority, but that's a whole lot different from being anti-war. MASH is also anti-military, but in a motiveless way (unless raking in the bucks was a motive). All the army ever did to these distinguished surgeons was to replace, temporarily of course, their zillion-dollar a year civilian careers with the opportunity to play golf, football, and crude practical jokes while occasionally saving of patients whom they obviously do not give a **** about personally.

The primary "anti-war" message here is that surgical operations involve lots of blood squirting around. That's it. Why not say MASH was is "anti-surgery" or "anti-medical profession" movie? Because that would nail the picture for the fraud it really is.

(Note: I know that medical students can be krazy kut-ups, especially when it comes to spare cadavers. MASH is a lot less funny.)
67 out of 131 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gilda (1946)
9/10
Trash worthy of Shakespeare. Well, maybe Milton.
7 August 2009
Not just another screen romance about three twisted people in hate, Gilda stars the flannel-voiced, scar-faced George Macready as a corrupt casino kingpin; a weirdly jumpy Glen Ford as the sleazy antihero; and, most of all, the incomparable, the breath-taking, Rita Hayworth as Gilda herself - lethal weapon of mass male destruction.

Ford is an American expatriate down-and-outer (actually, "bum" is a good word) in Argentina who's unlucky enough to have his life saved by Macready, whose character spends most of the film racking up points in hell till he can "rule the world" all by himself: his stated goal. Ford winds up working as Macready's floor-manager/stooge in the casino. Then Macready, whose "one friend" is his bayonet-cane, gets unlucky enough to meet and marry Hayworth, whose place in the history of life on earth is assured by her performance as a flame-haired blast-furnace of sultry...Jezebellitude, I guess! If you doubt me, just consider: Hayworth's famous "strip-tease" is so fantastically volcanic that your brain won't believe what your eyes are telling it - namely that all she removes is a single %@#^&&! glove!

But let's get serious. It's a talky movie. Yet the talk, for those who can still appreciate such things, is amazing. It contains two of the noirest lines in the cinema of all the cosmos. Sneers the all-too-knowing Ford as he watches Rita giving Macready the treatment, "Statistics show there are more women in the world than anything else. Except insects!" And as the two-, three-, and multi-timing Gilda slithers into the arms of another victim, she breathes, "If I was a ranch, they'd call me the Bar-Nothing." And you know what *that* means.

The plot isn't quite as twisty as The Maltese Falcon. In other words, you can follow it, but, trust me, it matches the three worthless losers that it's about kink for kink. There's even a wacked-out masquerade ball that symbolizes the double-crossing fabric of reality itself, at least in this movie, with Rita dressed up as a pirate of the Caribbean, only better looking.

Till you've seen Gilda, you ain't seen noir. In fact, my friend, you ain't seen nuthin'.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Libertine (2004)
4/10
Rochester deserved better
8 July 2007
Like so many others I wanted to like this movie. Depp is a superior actor, and here he really needs to be because so much else about Libertine is gray and sluggish. Unfortunately, not even Johnny Depp (or John Malkevitch) can pull this movie out of the mire.

You can get a graduate degree in English literature and barely hear the name of Rochester, though his plays and poetry are indeed distinctive, in part because they're almost compulsively obscene. What makes them interesting in small portions is their acerbic wit. My point is that Rochester is so completely unknown to most people that the film needs to explain exactly who he was. But it just doesn't bother.

The movie is reasonably faithful to Rochester's career (though scholars say his over-the-top play "Sodom and Gomorrah" - the centerpiece here - was probably never really performed). The biggest trouble with Libertine is that it offers absolutely no insight into either Rochester's psychology or that of his beautiful and loyal wife. Nor is there any dramatic tension and hardly any conflict. The result is a series of events without a plot. Rochester was obviously angry and depressed most of the time, but he was just as obviously a cleverer writer than the author of this screenplay. He lashed out against hypocrisy in his verse, and his intriguing relationship with his mistress Elizabeth Barry gave his life some meaning for a little while, but instead of finding tragedy or even irony in his life, Libertine just gives us a pathetic picture of a talented, arrogant, self-destructive loser. Rochester's death is pointless and unusually disgusting. And the movie never says that we should care.

Poorly put together, not very informative, not very witty, not very good. Fans knowledgeable about Rochester and the Restoration will probably find Depp's portrayal of interest - but not much else.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Apocalypto (2006)
2/10
In the grand tradition of "Passion" and "Caligula"
30 June 2007
A tough film to review because it's qualities are so wildly uneven.

Cinematography: state-of-the-art, beautifully done.

Costumes and make-up: like nothing you've seen in a movie.

Casting: excellent.

SFX: technically great.

Direction: fine.

Performances: mostly limited to three facial expressions - "My God, I'm gonna die!" "He He! You're gonna die!" and "Kill someone already!"

Characterization: noble, innocent victims of rape, torture, and murder; sadistic rapists, torturers, and murderers; cynical priests and rulers; zombie-like crowds.

Plot: kill, rape, torture, then torture, kill, torture, and chase, die, kill, kill, etc.

Dialogue: first half elementary; second half minimal.

Historical accuracy: Hollywood-level; the sadists seem to be Aztecs, but everybody speaks Mayan; visuals look like a hodgepodge of Mesoamerican art.

Should appeal strongly to: fans of action, bloody murder, calculated cruelty, and death; (there's some smallpox too, and something called "laughing sickness," previously reported only from Papua-New Guinea); the rapes are off-camera, so there's no sex here to disconcert parents.

Let's get real. This movie functions as pure spectacle. Its primary ingredients are extreme violence (yes, it could be worse), brutal sadism, and running through the jungle. Viewers who give ten stars are entranced by technical proficiency and sensational sights. They must also be so desensitized to brutal film sadism that it doesn't affect them - or else they really love seeing hearts cut realistically from chests, people slowly murdered while their kids watch, slow semi-strangulation, you know, that kind of thing.

In Gibson's "Braveheart," you had some slaughtering, hanging, and disemboweling in addition to standard battle scenes. In Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," you had an innocent Man lynched, tortured, and crucified in excruciating detail. In Gibson's "Apocalypto," you have what's described above, plus extreme tattooings and body-piercings, some of which may not be physiologically possible.

If "Apocalypto" is your meat, your idea of a great movie, go for it. I pity those close to you and I tremble for my country. On the other hand, if Gibson's human-sacrifice theory of mass entertainment disturbs you deeply or just makes you sick, stay as far away from him and his films as you possibly can.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Act of Love (1953)
6/10
Love in the Ruins
28 June 2007
A low-key film with a fine cast. Unfortunately, it's so low-key as to seem nearly aimless for the first half. The pace and interest do pick up, however, toward the end.

As World war II grinds slowly to a halt in Europe, an innocent French girl on the brink of prostitution and a cynical but lonely GI fall in love in the City of Lights - where, due to the war, the lights don't always work, A flaw, at least as the film plays on television, is that the French accents are sometimes hard to understand. And there are plenty of them.

Though ten years too old for the role, not unusual for actors in war movies before the '70s, Douglas turns in a solid performance as Pfc. Teller, the wounded American soldier now stationed at an army headquarters in Paris. But it is the lovely Dany Robin, rarely seen in America, who deserves most of the acting credit for keeping the rather unfocused story interesting. Fernand Ledoux is adequately brooding and resentful. The eighteen-year-old Brigitte Bardot is already beautiful, but look sharp or you may miss her.

The real scene-stealer here, though, is the slinky Barbara Laage, who shows herself to be a fine actress in very nearly her only American film. Too bad she breezes out of the picture a third of the way through.

The on-location shots of Paris are also a plus in a film that sometimes flirts dangerously with soap opera. Not a classic or even a forgotten classic, but worth your time if bittersweet love is your cup of tea.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Definitive Crockett Movie
18 June 2007
I'm rating this review not as myself, today, but as the six-year old kid who watched it in three installments on TV's "Disneyland" show in 1954-55.

First of all, it's the longer TV version you need to see. The version released to theaters is too condensed and moves much too quickly. But when it comes to Fess Parker and Buddy Ebsen, anything is better than nothing.

Parker played supporting roles in a few other movies and later played "Daniel Boone" on NBC for several seasons, but in "Davy Crockett" he delivered his best work by far - a wonderfully warm and believable portrayal of an idealized American hero.

Parker's Davy fights for right - settlers' rights, Indians' rights, freedom from tyranny in Texas. His motto is "Be sure your right, then go ahead." Be *sure* you're right: that admits the possibility you could be dead wrong unless you think carefully about what you stand for. In fact, without reflection, you don't really know if it's the other guy who's right. The Disney Crockett's insistence on the unreliability of simple gut feelings may make him the most philosophical "western" hero on film.

But when you're sure, you go ahead and do the right thing as you see it. You don't shrug your shoulders and measure personal inconvenience. Davy doesn't want to leave his family to fight Indians, but he does want to help protect settlers in Mississippi from a repeat of the Ft. Mims massacre (a genuine historical event). In this fantasy take on history, Davy ends the Creek War almost single handedly through a combination of physical courage, man-to-man fighting skills, and the kind of diplomacy that recognizes the common humanity of his adversaries.

In Congress, Davy stands up to the System to defend the rights of Indians and white settlers alike in West Tennessee. At the Alamo, he sacrifices himself for Texas independence.

Parker is far more appealing as Crockett than is John Wayne in ""The Alamo" a few years later, though I do agree with another reviewer who praises Billy Bob Thornton as being a little closer to the historical Crockett.

This is one of Disney's greatest film achievements - almost certainly their finest live-action movie. I could go on, but you get the idea. If you're a kid of any age "from 8 to 80" you'll enjoy "Davy Crockett." If you're young enough, you may just come away with a new hero worthy of the name.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not the worst movie ever made
7 February 2007
...But close in some ways. "Snakes on a Plane" is Hollywood's first horror-comedy cop-thriller reptile flick and that spells "misconceived." With that title it's got to be an "Airplane" style sendup, right? Well, not exactly. The concept is wacky enough, and some of the characters are the kind you'd expect in that sort of a movie, but most of the humor is the gross-out kind without any wit behind it. And sometimes it plays like a comedy, sometimes like a third-rate action thriller. It can't make up its mind! Too brutal to be fun, too stupid to be serious. Like, how could anybody smuggle that many snakes onto a plane in the first place ? And why bother ? SoaP gets off to a pretty slow start, but the pace does pick up toward the end. Slightly more fun than the remake of "The Haunting," also more repellent.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dieppe (1993 TV Movie)
9/10
Little-known but first-rate work
1 February 2007
I haven't seen every war movie ever made, but I have seen scores of 'em. Dieppe - a TV miniseries - is one of the best. Before I discovered it listed here on IMDb I'd been unable to find any mention of it in the standard film reference books. So chalk up another one for the Internet.

All the elements of good film-making work together here, including cast, script, and direction. What distinguishes Dieppe from all but one or two other war films (I'm thinking of The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far) is its focus on the planning as well as the execution of a military operation - the high brass, all the way up to Winston Churchill in this case, as well as the poor sods on the sharp end of the spear. That the actual Dieppe landing was a disaster - largely the result of cross-purposes, rivalries, and petty politicking among those in charge - makes this an especially important story for the generation that thinks World War II was easy, uncomplicated, and maybe fun. Although British and token U.S. forces were also involved to make the landings a true Allied effort, the Canadians took the brunt of the punishment on the beach. We in the United States need a reminder that our northern neighbors were fully engaged in both World Wars.

Strategy and politics aside, Dieppe tells a gripping true story. Catch it if you can.
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One-of -a-kind masterpiece
15 January 2007
There's never been another movie like "Green Pastures." Seldom has there been such an outrageous premise, so original a conception of simple religiosity, such a deft accomplishment of a potentially disastrous idea. This is the Old (not the New) Testament as it might be imagined by impoverished black children in the Mississippi Delta before their world had electricity, running water, radio, or the opportunity of anything beyond the most elementary education.

Rex Ingram exerts a quiet but stern and, by a wonderful paradox, very human authority as "De Lawd. The entire cast exudes the confidence of professionals and both the acting and the direction keep the film from ever descending into a minstrel-show debacle. It's a movie all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or their position on Darwin should be proud of. The tragedy - once again - is that so many talented actors were prevented by the racism of the times to achieve the professional success of white performers who, though no more talented, became familiar and durable stars.

Well, there's some poetic justice here, because the film itself is an enduring monument to its players, and a reminder of one of racial segregation's most insidious effects: the denial to American culture - and to world culture - of the fullest contribution of outstanding artists simply because of the color of their skin.

The warmth and humor of "Green Pastures" is indelible. The entire production, not least the choral numbers, remains world-class. The film is a must-see.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Grim. Needs to be on DVD
8 October 2006
It's hard for me to assign the "fair" number of stars to this film, but I settled on 8 because of its high production values and what was, in 1968, an innovative approach to the war film. Remember too that I haven't seen it since 1969. But it did make a strong impression.

The Long Day's Dying must be one of the most vivid antiwar films ever made. It achieves this simply by portraying in extremely realistic terms the actions of a handful of soldiers in Northwestern Europe in 1944-45. No film before this one showed war at the infantry squad level with so much brutal detail, and all in a coldly dispassionate way that lets the actions speak for themselves. There is no preaching, no sentimentality, no comic relief, no complicated scenarios.

Unfortunately, there's no subtlety either. Partly because of their situation - trying to stay alive - the characters come across as flat, familiar cliché's. As "entertainment," the film doesn't make it, though it was clearly not intended to "entertain." It was intended to slug you over the head with the misery and horror of World War II and modern war in general. This was twenty years before Platoon and thirty before Saving Private Ryan, both of which are far more "watchable" films. Here the flat and generally disagreeable characters, the lack of an actual plot, and the realistically unpleasant images (including what may be the first on-screen vomit in theatrical history) make the film hard to sit through, though it is only 95 minutes.

So, 10 stars for production and realism, 4 stars for the feeling you'll have when it's over, a bonus star for having its heart in the right place. Average: 8.

Like Carl Foreman's underrated "The Victors," an equally downbeat but more interesting and thought-provoking film, The Long Day's Dying seems not to be on DVD. Why not? Both films have been on cable a number of times.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great Old Musical
6 October 2006
The Great Waltz proves that, once upon a time, Hollywood knew how to make terrific musicals. And, make no mistake, this hokey fantasy set in a world that could never really have existed is a great musical. Why it isn't better known beats me.

Fernand Gravet, as waltz king Johann Strauss, may be a bit anemic as a leading man by today's standards of intensity and brawn, but his quite adequate performance is far overshadowed by the dramatic turn of Luise Rainer as his faithful wife and by the magnificent singing of ultra Miliza soprano Miliza Korjus who essentially steals the show.

The music is fantastic, the dancing nearly psychedelic. The sequence in the Vienna Woods is very silly and very beautiful. The black-and-white photography becomes nearly as eloquent as color.

Even if you don't think you Strauss waltzes and opera singing, give The Great Waltz a try. You won't be sorry.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Overpraised pacifist statement rings hollow.
5 September 2006
This overpraised, overlong film is due for a fresh look from the critics.

The characters are not terrifically individualized or interestingly portrayed, with the exception of Von Stroheim's philosophical Colonel. The plot development is slow to the point of aimlessness. The prisoners are all either happy-go-lucky adventurous types or poor souls who just want to go home. It may be unfair to compare two films made nearly thirty years apart, but there is far, far more of interest going on in "The Great Escape," unquestionably the most thoughtful of the POW movies, than there is here. Which is especially ironic, since "The Great Escape" was made chiefly as an adventure tale. Yet it can boast far better characterizations and far more interesting human interactions than does "Grand Illusion," long a favorite among cinema intellectuals.

Europe's mood in the 1930s (outside of Germany, of course) was pacifistic. Voila! "Grand Illusion" is a pacifist film. It is also, unfortunately, a tedious recital of sentimental clichés, quite undistinguished except for some nice open-air direction at the end, and for Von Stroheim's oddly memorable neck-brace.
17 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Panama Flo (1932)
8/10
Forgotten, hardboiled fun
5 September 2006
"Panama Flo" is a hardboiled soap opera of a kind they don't make anymore but that was popular back in the twenties and thirties. It's the sort of story that pulp magazines used to publish month after month, with a resourceful but temporarily helpless blonde (in this case the nearly forgotten but topnotch Helen Twelvetrees)trapped in a jungle at the mercy of a tough guy (the really rough tough Charles Bickford) who's almost, but not quite, a dangerous sociopath. This picture is melodramatic fun all the way through, with some snappy dialog ("A Mickey Finn--and make it stick!"), a sleazy saloon, a big biplane, good acting and camera work, and a twisty ending.

Fans of Harlow and Gable in "Red Dust" won't be disappointed in "Panama Flo." Turner Classic Movies deserves credit for bringing it back.
27 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In Country (1989)
8/10
Beautiful portrayals by the two stars
22 August 2006
It's easy to see why so few people seem to have connected with this underrated movie. There's no nudity, no violence, no killing, no superstars chewing up the scenery. It is, instead, a quiet, maybe too slow-moving, film about a teenage girl at the cusp of womanhood trying to learn about what Vietnam had been like for her father, who was killed there. She also begins to see her ex-G.I. uncle clearly, for the first time, as a survivor of something terrible.

In Country is about the Vietnam War only as in the sense that it's also about a family's history whose impact bridges the generations. It's less about events than it is about becoming a grown-up in an America that has a sixty-second attention span and a fifteen-minute memory.

Emily Lloyd, who you'd never guess is English, does a beautifully sensitive job in the starring role, and Bruce Willis, as her uncle, turns in a very fine, very dignified performance.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Billy Budd (1962)
10/10
One of the screen's great classics
15 June 2006
It took me a long time--decades, in fact--to warm to Herman Melville's story "Billy Budd," written in 1891. The writing is dense, the pacing unsatisfactory, the characters more symbols than human beings.

But the movie brilliantly overcomes all these difficulties. The casting is perfect. The then-unknown Terence Stamp seems to have been born for his role as Billy Budd. Nobody could play psychopathic villains like Robert Ryan, a vastly under-appreciated actor, and his portrayal of the villainous master-at-arms, Claggart, may be his finest performance. Melvyn Douglas, in his final role, gives great support as Billy's mentor. Peter Ustinov, whom one might think too soft and distractable to be a British naval captain, turns out to be the ideal embodiment of Captain Vere, whose real attitude toward Billy's "crime" is one of the great enigmas of the story.

You don't need to know a thing about Melville to be thoroughly absorbed by this film. It raises basic questions about the conflict between morality and legality, and the resolution of the problem here, like the process itself, will stick with you for a very long time.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sentimental drama has heart in the right place
14 June 2006
There was a fair amount of discussion at the end of World War II about the difficulties combat vets might face in readjusting to normal life. "Till the End of Time" puts many of these concerns up on the screen, but the emotion that comes through so memorably in the superior "Best Years of Our Lives" is mostly absent. That's despite the efforts of Dorothy McGuire (who's perfectly cast here as the maybe-27 "older" war widow who's the only civilian who can realistically relate to college-age vet Guy Madison). Except for McGuire, the actors are all rather limited, including Madison and Robert Mitchum. That and a lackluster script make their characters less than compelling, so their very realistic problems look dismayingly like they were inflicted by soap-opera writers rather than by the war.

Like many other old movies, the film seemed stronger when it appeared. Since then, we've seen so many unhappy returned veterans in films that the three here are like instant clichés. They weren't in 1946, though, and "Till the End of Time" was one of the first movies to tell Saturday-night civilians that, like Cliff (Madison), you didn't have to be badly shot up (like Mitchum and Williams) to have been profoundly changed by battle. To his suburban parents, Cliff is now a mystery, and his mom doesn't at all approve of his new vocabulary or his friendship with a wounded Marine from "Stinking Creek, Texas." This one is mainly for fans of the stars and for those seriously interested in Hollywood's treatment of World War II
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed