Reviews

This is one of those musicals, common in the 1930s & 40s, that was more of a display of orchestras than for plot development. In the 1930s & 40s many musicals were created for the purpose of displaying some famous orchestra. Such musicals showed little plot development. This is one such musical.

Charlotte Greenwood is given the opportunity several times to show her extraordinary ability for high kicking, but it was out of place with regard to the overall plot.

An excessive amount of time is given to Harry James and his orchestra. Harry James' character is totally inconsequential to the plot.

Helen Forrest sings a number that takes up several minutes, but does not appear in the film at any other time.

What plot development there is, is fairly interesting as Vicky Lane & Dan Christy jump in and our of love for each other, as other romantic relationships develop as well.

This film is a classic example of an ignorant public being drawn to a bad film because of all the hype the studio put out saying what a great film it would be.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire are fine actors and demonstrate their fine acting ability here. But the plot of this film is shallow and pointless. It's the screen writers, Baz Luhrmann & Craig Pearce, that failed in this film. The film has no excitement, nothing that the plot leads toward for the viewer to look forward to. I have not read the book, so I have no idea how the film follows the book. But it makes no difference, because this film has no entertainment value.

Yet, the public has bought into the studio hype that this is a great film and is giving it high ratings. It's amazing how a robotic, shallow public will be so easily entertained with such a mundane story. The studio really can make a film appear great to a shallow minded public, if they put enough money into the advertising, as they have for this film.

For those entertained by violence, this may be just the film. It's mostly about a slave that gets his freedom and wants to free his wife. In doing so, he kills a whole bunch of white (and Negro) slavers. But those looking for some thought provocation or intrigue, skip it. If you simply want to go see a movie showing someone really upset with the world and gets his revenge, then this might be just the film. If you want to see a lot of shooting and split blood, then this will probably suit you. If you want to see a film that doesn't require any exercise of the intellect, then this film will probably be what you are looking for.

The acting is fine. All the actors do their job very well, but it's not the actors that write the story or the script. DeCaprio does very well as a Southern slave owner - very sly and deceitful. Jamie Fox does very well at getting revenge and shooting people. Several times in the film he has to just sit & bite his tongue until he gets his chance. But that doesn't really take much acting ability. Fox may very well be a fine actor, but this film is no test of his acting ability. Anyone can simply go and shoot a bunch of people. That's been done in thousands of films.

This musical is a satire on the prohibition and resulting violence occurring in the 1920's. All the characters are kids playing adult roles. The satire is drawn against Bugsy Malone's younger life. The cars are all peddle operated. People get shot with paint and there are plenty of pies in the faces to substitute for violence. Instead of dealing in liquor, the kids are black marketing sarsaparilla (root beer). It's just a great satire of the prohibition era made into a musical, a great credit to younger generation actors. All the kids really do act the part of adults and do it very well. It is too bad the singing is not credited.

I don't usually get this far off in judging a film before I go see it. I went to this film, because I thought Cameron Diaz could make it good. Wow, was I wrong. Ms. Diaz' acting is as bad as the rest of the film. She is a very good looking lady, but her acting is really poor and that is exemplified in this film.

The script is really bad. The directing is really bad. The acting is really bad by all actors. This film has no redeeming qualities, unless one wants to simply see Ms. Diaz display her body. She does do that.

Warning - There is pornography (not by Cameron Diaz) in this film. I didn't check the rating before seeing it, but the porno is there. One wonders why producers, directors and writers put that stuff in their films. Here it just further degrades an already really lousy film.

Right off, I will admit I am no fan of Shirely MacLaine. In some films she does well enough as an actress such as "Some Came Running" and her first film, "The Trouble with Harry". But someone made the mistake of suggesting she could sing. Opps!!! Big mistake. She can't as is well demonstrated here and neither can most of the rest of this cast. Sammy Davis Jr. we know can sing if given some decent material to sing, but here he is singing among some hippie church revival group. Chita Rivera, like MacLaine, just can't sing.

You know, sometimes a film is made as a showpiece for some particular actor to demonstrate his / her talent, and it appears this one was to show off Ms. MacLaine's singing ability. Well, now we've seen what there is of that and we can move on.

Musicals typically contain dancing as well. Now I know that some actors that don't normally dance can be taught to dance for a particular film, such as Zellweger, Zeta-Jones & Gere in "Chicago". But it's pretty obvious that no one spent much time to teach Ms. MacLaine to do any real dancing. She does one dance number, "There's Got to Be Something Better Than This" with Paula Kelly and Chita Rivera that comes off well. But the dancing she does with John McMartin is really poor. So much for the quality of this disaster as a musical.

As a romantic film, this thing is worse. No plot twists or anything unexpected. Just a lovesick girl so desperate for affection she will take ANYTHING as evidenced in the first scene. MacLaine plays this lovesick girl like she is begging for affection and ends up with someone else like herself. I guess they were made for each other, but not for entertainment.

This plot leads no where. There is really little comedy here. Even Gene Hackman seemed bored with his role through the first half of the film.

Both Gene Hackman and Barbara Streisand are terrific comedic actors, but here they offer no comedy. It starts off in the first scene with a chair going thru the window, but there is no attempt to follow that up with comedic dialog. There are some attempts at slapstick while Hackman works his night job, but those are pretty poor.

The plot is pretty confusing and one is not sure who is with who. Streisand does look pretty sexy here, but she doesn't offer the one-liners she has in other comedic roles.

Mussolini was a bullying opportunist, a hooligan who would use shouting in an uninterupptible manner in is oratory discourse to overwhelm his debaters. He had little to no real understanding or belief in the socialism he professed to espouse. Rather he used the socialist party to build his own image and to further his own career. In this film this is perceived of him by both his wife, Rachele, and his sometime supporter, Angelika Balabanoff. However, neither had the gumption to stand by their convictions as Benito's significance to them had grown such that neither could ignore him. The film tries to conceal this point, but it does come out, knowing where Benito was headed after the film ends.

The English title is pretty misleading. The film ends in 1915, just before Italy enters World War I on the side of the Allies, as Mussolini intended. So there is nothing in the film about the "... Fall of Mussolini". The film deals only with "... The Rise ..." The Italian title is much more accurate, as it does deal pretty much with Mussolini's youth, 1901-1915. I watched the English audio version. Another reviewer stated the Italian version (English subtitled) was better because it was more passionate. That may well be, but both versions on the DVD are dubbed. That's not Antonio Banderas speaking Italian on the Italian version.

Perhaps for educational value, the film has some merit to get an idea what Mussolini's life was like 1901-1915. It seems chronologically accurate, though it may be debatable whether Mussolini resigned or was expelled and/or fired from his various positions. In the film he is portrayed as resigning from the socialist party, but per Wikipedia he was expelled. So the film may not be absolutely accurate, but one can get a feel for what Mussolini was like in the film as he bullied people and constantly espoused and provoked violence. I find it interesting that the film ends just before Mussolini is about to show his true colors as he enters the war himself (the war being opposed by the socialist party) and afterward promotes Fascism (diametrically opposed to the socialism he professed before the war).

I give the film a low rating based on its entertainment value. The film does have some educational value which is why I watched it. However, I find little entertainment value in the glorification of such a hypocritical opportunist as Benito Mussolini and for me film ratings are based on entertainment value.

For me this is my favorite film of all time. Cary Grant & Audrey Hepburn are my two favorite actors. This film has everything in it that one looks for. It has intrigue, comedy, plot twists, romance. Cary Grant keeps changing his identity so you don't really find out who he is until the very last scene. Audrey Hepburn (Reggie Lampert) turns hot & cold with him as he changes his identities. Thrown into this mix is a French police inspector who is trying himself to find out who killed Reggie's husband. Then everyone is after the quarter million dollars in gold that no one can figure out where it is until the end. And therein lies the big mystery - where is all that money? And who is doing all the killing as dead bodies keep piling up? All the constantly changing identities and scheming that Cary Grant pulls off just makes Reggie that more attracted to him. And he isn't the only one lying about his identity. 10/10

What a disjointed story!!! I was very disappointed in "The Good Shepherd". This film is simply a series of anecdotes as Edward recalls his life and involvement in the CIA via a series of disjointed flashbacks. The film has no continuous plot to draw one through.

If one is simply looking for disrelated data about the CIA or Mr. Wilson, then this might be just the film. I sat through it and kept hoping that one of these anecdotes would lead to some plot development, but they never did. Each anecdote simply ended with the end of that flashback. Then Wilson comes back to present time before he flashes back to another disrelated anecdote.

This might be just fine for someone that simply wants to see disrelated data about the CIA & Mr. Wilson, but it's not very entertaining. Matt Damon & Angelina Jolie do their jobs just fine. They are fine actors and do well here as much as the non-script will allow them. DeNiro appears and gives a fine performance in his short role. Alec Baldwin is less impressive, but also appears in only a minor role. What can you expect since there is no continuity? No PLOT!!! I give it a 3/10 for the data it does offer about the CIA.

I was disappointed with this production. I do prefer traditional settings with Shakespeare; but aside from that, the performances were just not strong enough. Malvolio's cross-gartering & yellow stockings simply do not lend themselves to 19th century dress as depicted in this version. Shakespeare wrote the play around 1600 and at that time yellow stockings could be much more easily displayed. But in the rest of this play, as well as the later half of the 19th century when this versions is set, men including Malvolio were wearing full-length pants. It makes the cross-gartering & yellow stockings much more of a contrivance than it would in a traditional Shakespearean setting.

Part of what made this film disappointing was the weather that was displayed. It was dreary most of the time, if not snowing. This is a comedy and the setting should be light & cheery in comedies. I see that the setting was at Christmas, which is fine I guess, but the overall effect of the weather is to make the play seem more dreary than it should be.

The part of Olivia was done fairly well, but there were no really standout performances here. Viola simply gave an average performance. Aguecheek here should be much more effeminate. Sir Toby Belch should appear more drunk & slovenly most of the time. He appeared to me a little too dignified. Malvolio, being the object of much of the clownery, should be more indignant than he appears here. On his release, he stands motionless in silence for some minutes. Fabian seems almost sorry for him, instead of snickering as he might be.

All in all I found the performances to be fairly average. I have seen this play on stage several times and it was done significantly better every time than it was here. The acting was much more intense in the performances I have seen on stage than the acting in this version.

The acting here is fairly good. It's not really great as it doesn't stand out. The thing I really liked about this production is the costuming and scenery. These are important to me to help understand the play as Shakespeare intended. In this production the street scenes take place with street people around to give the feeling that the scene really is on the street. The scenes indoors likewise show what indoors would show in the time period. The dance scene is done showing many people dancing, though Rosaline is not shown as she is in some productions. Costumes were not cheaply done. Nobility are arrayed in very fine apparel.

As far as the acting is concerned, I didn't feel there were any standout performances, except perhaps Christopher Biggins as a Capulet servant who can't read, a good comical part. Biggins did a good job of pulling off the comedy of his part. The Nurse and Peter are supposed to be comical characters and they try at it, but don't come off as well as in other versions of Romeo and Juliet. The parts of Romeo & Juliet are delivered fairly well, but don't stand out. Juliet's father, Capulet, seems just a bit effeminate, rather inappropriate for so domineering a father, husband and lord of the house. Tybalt should be much more antagonistic and sly. Here he is certainly willing to fight, but it almost seems as if it was Mercutio that was the antagonist in the fight between he & Tybalt. Mercutio does a good job in his incessant talk at nothing, which is as his character is supposed to be. He rambles and makes it seem natural.

Lastly, the credits are lacking. The most notable omission is that there is no credit for Benvolio. Lady Montague and Peter are missing as well in the credits. Many of the other credits are missing in the film, but are filled in by IMDb.

This version is set in approximately the late 19th century by costuming. There is no scenery and very few props. The characters act against a black background. Acting itself is superb. Macbeth & the Witches are appropriately frothing at the mouth at the proper times. Ian McKellen & Judi Dench perform their standard great performances. Ian McDiarmid does a great job as the Porter. That is particularly significant, as it is one of the few comical parts in a very gloomy play.

However, I miss the scenery & traditional costuming. McKellen explains in an extra on the DVD that all the costuming, scenery & props (including Macbeth's shrunken heads at the end – a little much ???) were all provided for only £250. He calls the production one of "talking heads". Well, that's true, as for a very large part all you see is the characters' faces against a black background. Personally I look for something more in a Shakespeare production. I believe the scenery & costuming to be important in setting the scene. Shakespeare is difficult enough to understand when set with scenery & costumes. When scenery & costumes are taken out, then it becomes more difficult to understand. I feel too much is left to the imagination or to the guesswork of the viewer. If one has the text to follow along with, accompanied with footnotes & a Shakespeare glossary, then it's less of a problem. But then one can't just sit back & enjoy the play. One must constantly refer to the text footnotes to understand what is happening, unless one is a real Shakespeare aficionado.

If all you want is great acting full of emotion and you don't care about lack of scenery or costumes, then perhaps this version of Macbeth is for you. Occasionally the dialog is cut or changed from one character to another, presumably for no other reason than to give that actor some lines. But personally I miss the scenery, costuming and sword play. As McKellen explains, except for the acting itself, this is certainly a cheap version of Macbeth. As long as the production saved a lot of money in production, I recommend you do likewise and look for another version of Macbeth. There are lots of well acted versions out there that spent money on scenery & costumes.

I have never seen such a film that has so little value as this version of Buffalo Soldiers. The black soldiers that operated in the American West after the Civil War deserved better than this.

This film had no plot. The acting was extremely poor. There was no character development. It was mis-cast. The costuming of the Indians was extremely poor. The songs were really poor; it would have done better without such boring songs. Where do they find such lousy composers? The Indians were dressed in modern clothing made to look ragged. They had headbands that were obviously recently color dyed for the film.

Cesar Romero is a fine actor, but it is pretty unreal to find a Latin officer in the US Army defending the US border with Mexico. Barbara Hale plays his wife. She took her part pretty insincerely. I agree with her, as no one could take this film seriously. 1/10

I could definitely have done without Jeff Daniels' 2 min - 40 second soliloquy. While it was pertinent (comparison of Julius Ceasar not sending troops to invade Italy and question of the Union sending troops to invade their own country), it seemed the whole purpose of this soliloquy was to demonstrate Daniels' character as a philosophy professor, after all he failed previously when one of his students caught him on a philosophical point about slavery. I can just see an infantry colonel on the eve of battle soliloquizing for 2-1/2 minutes about Juiius Ceasar. I don't think so; let's just get on with what's at hand and forget about Julius Ceasar.

The DVD production company put this film on two sides of a DVD and cut it right in the middle of a Union charge at the Battle of Fredericksburg. That was poor enough to put it on two sides, but then they cut it in the middle of a battle charge. And then on top of that, the balance of the battle charge was left off of the second side. Very poor editing on the DVD.

A little over-acted in many places, such as Daniels' 2-1/2 minute soliloquy. The last battle however is really well done. The film shows the planning and execution of this battle really well. I wish other battles had been shown as well as this one. My vote 5/10

I am a great fan of Julie Andrews, so I really wanted this to be good. Ms. Andrews does her usual great job of singing and adds whatever she can to the film.

The film is really a bunch of disrelated incidents and experiences (no plot connection) designed to entertain the two children. So for children, that might be very sufficient. But for myself I like to see some plot development.

Many people may plead that musicals need not rely on plot. I would disagree. The really great musicals all had real plot development. The various disrelated incidents lead to morale development, but spark little other interest.

This is a very under-rated film. It presents a very realistic situation that could easily happen between corrupt businessmen and corrupt politicians. The characters were presented as they might easily appear in real life.

The story line is of Leo (Wahlberg) who just gets out of prison on parole and looks to his uncle (Caan) to get a job so he can support himself and his mom. Willie (Phoenix) gets Leo involved in a late night escapade where a cop gets beaten up and a railway worker gets killed. Leo is caught between the "code of silence" in the criminal world and the pursuit of the cops after him, thinking he is responsible for the killing.

Leo has a lot of feeling for his family, especially his mom, Val, (Burstyn) and gets caught up in the corruption of the railway business. Frank Olchin (Caan) is a step uncle that Wahlberg tries to get a job with. Olchin really does have non-corrupting intentions for Leo. Leo tries to adhere to the criminal "code of silence", but the pressure builds.

Erica (Theron) is Olchin's step-daughter and full daughter to Kitty (Dunaway) who has married Olchin. None of the women (Val, Erica & Kitty) know about or are involved in the corruption but their feelings get stepped on due to the circumstances of what's going on.

The action is not as intense as in many crime dramas. But this leads it to being more realistic, yet it retains one's interest to see how things work out. There is some nudity, but the lone sex scene is not so long that it detracts from the story line. It's just there to show the relationship between Willie and Erica and to let Willie loosen up after a tough evening. I give the film a 10/10.

Certainly no one would watch this film for its quality acting. Faye Dunaway and Jennifer Beals are the major exceptions. These two ladies deliver prime performances as do a few of the other actors (Karina Huff as an estate serving woman and Claudia Lawrence as Olivia's nurse).

Unfortunately the film centers around Matthew Modine who continually demonstrates he should have sought out another profession than acting. He is supposed to be quite the lady's man here and various actresses do their part to try to make him look that way. But Modine just doesn't have what it takes to carry it off to the audience. Perhaps he will stick to stunts and sword play as he would probably do well at that. But if there is a god, he won't speak another line of dialogue in film.

Ian Bannen plays Modine's father and his part suffers I believe from poor directing. Bannen is an accomplished actor and should have done better, but it appears to me that he was simply directed to make himself appear pure victim rather than take his losses like a man of sterner stuff.

The thing I liked about the film is it's unique story line and the intensity that Faye Dunaway introduces into the story. It's a story of one Francesco Sacredo (Modine) who wagers and loses his rights to his life and livingness to Countess Matilda (Dunaway). On losing the wager Sacredo refuses to abide by the terms of the wager and flees. In his flight he hops in and out of bed with most of the women he meets along the way. The Countess hires men to pursue him and the pursuit of Sacredo becomes a game for the Countess like a cat playing with a mouse. It's this last aspect of the film that makes the film for me, in spite of Modine's and Bannen's acting.

I also liked the sets and costuming. They seemed well done. I give it a 7/10 for Dunaway's and Beal's parts and the story line minus the Modine factor.

This is a really well written, directed and acted war movie. I wish it had been filmed in real, natural color, not the grey overtone to make it look like it was filmed during WW II.

Everything about it is great except the photography. The cinemaphotographer tried to create the same effect in "Sky Captian, World of Tomorrow" with Jude Law. This greyed out effect is unnatural and detracts from the overall quality of the film. There is nothing wrong with depicting real color, rather than cheapening it to look like a lesser quality film was used. There is some archive footage that was undoubtedly filmed during the war and is black & white. That's fine, but modern film doesn't need to be made to look like it's lower quality film.

The war scenes are very realistic. The film is a great depiction of the underground activity in Manila, as well as realistic scenes from the POW camp. The rescue operation is suspenseful and detailed. GREAT STORY!!! 9/10

Just exactly why the producers made this film I cannot understand. Now I am not familiar with the exact events of Marilyn Monroe's life, so I could not judge the accuracy of this film in depicting her life. But this film is totally disappointing in the depiction of her life. The question in my mind is "Did the producers & writers of this film truly enjoy telling the world how screwed up Marlilyn Monroe's life really was?" Did the producers really enjoy making this film? It is a pretty degraded purpose to tear up someone's life like this and expose it to the world as "entertainment", regardless of how accurate it is.

To me films should serve as entertainment. The entertainment value of this film is absolute ZERO. It shows none of the happier moments of Marilyn's life, except in her childhood, but then it only goes downhill from there. There is nothing in this film that glorifies the most celebrated of all actresses.

If you want some graphical depiction of the degraded points of Marilyn's life, then perhaps this film is for you. But if you are looking to be entertained, unless you are pretty sadistic, look elsewhere for entertainment. 1/10

This film has a really interesting plot. The acting is pretty good as well. It is a real life story about the height of integrity of a journalist in Laos, and the extent to which he will go for his girlfriend. It is a very uplifting story.

However, the DVD versions of the film (I have seen two DVD versions) are extremely poor. The sound is so terrible, that frequently the listener cannot tell what is being said, and there are no subtitles or closed captioning. There is a constant roaring sound in the background of the soundtrack for the entire film that makes the voices often difficult to understand.

The film has really bad resolution and it is often dark. The lighting and resolution are frequently so poor that one cannot recognize which characters are in the scene.

The producers of the DVDs frequently bill the film as starring Priscilla Presley. If you are a Priscilla Presley fan, don't be fooled by this as she appears on the screen for a total of perhaps 2 minutes and has about three lines. She plays a very minor role in the film. It is strange that the real heroine in this film, Laura Gemser, usually gets much less billing.

The film can usually be purchased for less than $5, which to me is worth it. But be aware that the sound and video quality are EXTREMELY poor. So I give the plot a 9 and the filming a 1 for an average of 5/10.

This film simply consists of the ramblings of one Rob Gordon (characteristically played by John Cusack) who simply rambles on about his life. He discusses why his girlfriends left him, and of course Gordon has no responsibility for that, as if it was their shortcomings for leaving him. Then the other half of his life is his record store where he has hired two people who are less responsible and intelligent than Gordon is, if that is possible.

Jack Black very characteristically plays a real jerk that drives customers out of the record store, but Gordon complains that he can't fire his employees.

If you enjoy films that have absolutely no plot and consist entirely of the ramblings of an irresponsible person complaining about his life, then this might just be the film for you. This film has absolutely no plot. It has no entertainment value whatsoever, except for people looking for empathy in a degraded life.

I just saw this film, The Merchant of Venice today. I was somewhat disappointed for several reasons. One, much of the dialogue was difficult to hear, especially Shylock played by Al Pacino who should know better.

Two, Al Pacino did not display the intensity of emotion in this film that I know he is capable of. In the film "Devil's Advocate" he displayed lots of emotion. That was missing here, except for his grief at the trial.

***Spolier*** Another point was that some of the dialogue was omitted. At the end, it was omitted that all of Antonio's ships came to port after all. In the play, the point is made at the end that all of Antonio's ships came to port and none were shipwrecked afterall, though this point was omitted in this production.

Most significant is the omission of real comedy in this production. It seems that whenever Shakespeare is played on the screen comedy must be omitted in place of real drama & tragedy as opposed to seeing Shakespeare on the stage where Shakespeare's comedy is preserved. That was the case in this production. Here the basic story is intact and retains, yea even exemplifies the drama and seriousness of the moment at the cost of removing any comical moments in the play.

Shakespeare intended this play to be a comedy, and while modern ideas of comedy are different than what they were at the time of Shakespeare, most of Shakepeare's comedy is still valid. That does not come through in this production. This production is all seriousness, no light-heartedness whatsoever. I give it a 6 out of 10 for the effort as I know this type of production is seldom profitable. But they could have done better and not have spent any more money.

As Will Shakespeare wrote this story, it was supposed to be a comedy. However, Burton & Taylor removed all the comical elements to make it just plain drama probably to portray their own lives.

Shakespeare wrote comedies where a great deal of the comedy is acted by minor characters in the stories. In this production, no minor characters were allowed to do that and the removal of all that comedy can only be attributed to Burton & Taylor being producers of the film. It appears that Burton & Taylor wanted to use this production to portray their own personal marriage travails, not to portray Shakespeare drama.

The scene where Biondello brings the books for Baptista's daughters to study became very dry though Biondello is supposed to be comical in this scene. The scene where Petruchio gets clothes becomes dry because the Haberdasher is not allowed to react to Burton's comments.

All this might be of small consequence if Burton & Taylor could act comedy themselves, but they can't. Neither Burton nor Taylor were capable of comedy. They are both fine dramatic actors, but not for comedy. They take their parts far too seriously to act comedy. Unless the actor is doing a monologue, comedy usually requires a working relationship between two actors. Burton & Taylor did not allow that relationship with the minor characters in this production, though they did attempt it between themselves. But they are far too serious in their dialogue to come off comically.

For real Shakespeare comedy, see "Much Ado About Nothing" with Kenneth Branagh & Emma Thompson. Now that is real Shakespeare comedy. Be sure to observe the flippant dialogue & bantering between Benedick & Beatrice, as well as Dogberry's lines to the judge and the criminal's reactions when they are brought before the judge. This production of "The Taming of the Shrew" is a true disgrace to the spirit of William Shakespeare.