Reviews

22 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Not all that bad
5 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Whoever was responsible for writing the first half of the movie botched it. The script fails to set up the story, leaving the movie without the necessary tension. The second half, on the other hand, is very good, and follows the the details of the book closely.

The first half of the movie is devoid of the suspense found in the book. The viewer is left with a bored, who cares attitude to the events we see of the French Resistance. The book is different.

I lent the book to a friend, who read it in less than two days. I, on the other hand, savored it, reading a portion at a time of the wonderfully detailed accounts of hundreds of French, Germans and Americans reported by the two authors, Larry Collins and Dominique LaPierre. I am a journalist, and this is the most magnificent job of reporting I have ever read. I asked my friend why she was in such a hurry, and she said she wanted to see how it ended! You see, the key to the book is found in the title, "Is Paris Burning?" This question recurs throughout the book. Will General von Choltitz have to destroy all of Paris, part of Paris, or will it be spared? How will he handle this order?

Von Choltitz' position on this is not made clear until more than halfway into the movie, and even then the issue, as described in the book, is never stated explicitly. When you know the whole story, von Choltitz' pivotal, heroic role is clear. But the movie drops the ball on this. Perhaps the French director was not willing to go that far. Back in the early 1960s, many Europeans who lived through the war were not willing to forgive the Germans, any German. My father was French. Nearly all of his family were killed by the Germans. So I know. But the price paid by the director is a botched movie.

General Dietrich von Choltitz is the true hero; it is he who saved Paris from destruction. He died shortly after the movie was released. I suspect he was at least a little disappointed by the movie, but from what I have read, he lived quietly, and I doubt he did what he did to be thanked; I think he did it because it was right. That's the picture I got from the book.

The book, and I am going from memory here, begins with von Choltitz being called to see Hitler, as does the movie. The book makes it clear that von Choltitz realizes that Hitler is now insane and the war is lost; the movie does not have von Choltitz state this until halfway through. Next, on a train he encounters a Gestapo officer by chance who has written new guidelines to make sure all officers in the field follow orders, despite the impending collapse of the war: If they fail to obey orders, their families will be slaughtered and their homes and possessions destroyed. So he now knows the price if he fails to destroy Paris on Hitler's orders. That is how the book opens. The movie NEVER states that von Choltitz's family could be killed. But at the end, right before his surrender, von Choltitz asks General Speidel to see that his family does not suffer.

Von Choltitz had destroyed other cities in Eastern Europe, a fact not stated by the movie. That is why Hitler chose him. But he realizes from the beginning that there was no military point to destroying Paris as a simple act of vengeance, and he never had any intention of carrying it out. Therefore, he had to perform a delicate dance with the Resistance to satisfy German command and to avoid things getting out of control so that the Germans forced the total destruction of the city. That is the tension that drove the book; it is almost completely missing from the first half of the movie. How will von Choltitz balance the two forces?

While von Choltitz acted the tough German general in the beginning, he soon had several sympathetic conversations with the Resistance, pleading with them not to force his hand. The most astonishing detail of the book is that it is von Choltitz who called in the Resistance and told them to cross the German lines and go to the Allies and ask them to invade Paris, and hurry! If they did not, he would be forced to set off the explosives set throughout Paris. This is almost entirely missing from the movie, though there is the scene with Consul Nordling that suggests this.

There are a number of historical inaccuracies, mainly in the first half of the movie, as I recall from the book. One odd error is that the movie has von Choltitz being asked by a German general why he did not call in the Luftwaffe to bomb Paris. Actually, he did do one bombing run to placate the Germans and buy time: of a Parisian slum. Not of the Parisian monuments Hitler wanted destroyed.

The second half of the movie is excellent; virtually all of the detailed dialogue is true, even of those who die seconds later, reconstructed by hundreds of interviews. The scene where the soldiers invite themselves into the old lady's apartment, who sits happily by, as if it were a tea party, as they kill Germans, is true. It was one of the highlights of the book, in my opinion.

One memorable detail missing from the movie is that as von Choltitz is taken through the streets as a prisoner of war, a woman spits on him, reminiscent of "A Tale of Two Cities." It was one of the great ironies of the book, for it was von Choltitz who had saved her city. But the Parisians did not know this.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Say Yes (1986)
3/10
Don't go out of your way
1 September 2007
This is one of those movies you would have to be crazy to buy, if you actually could, unless it was at a dollar store. Then it would be worth it. Or to rent. But if you stumble on it on TV and there is nothing else on, and you have nothing else to do, go ahead. You might actually enjoy it. Heck, you can always turn it off. But the fast pace of the goof ball insanity might keep your trigger finger off the off button.

Being a goof ball comedy, the director seems to think most of the actors don't need to know how to actually act, at least the goof ball characters, and it appears they don't. The big exception is of course Jonathan Winters. Watching his facial expressions and animal mimicry is a delight, as always. They are toned down enough from his usual comic routines to be especially fascinating.

But for a goof ball comedy to work, you need some straight men and women. Art Hindle is OK, in a fluffy sort of way. He seems like a normal, decent sort of fellow, which is what the character calls for. And Lissa Layng does a commendable job as the one sane woman in his life, striking a good balance between shy and sensibility.

The plot is complete far fetched nonsense. But its kinda fun, in a distracting, escapist way. So the movie is watchable, in an emergency. Speaking of emergencies, I wouldn't recommend it for an in-flight movie.

Looking back on the film, I think it could have been better. Goofball comedies with absurd plots can be made to work. The problem is that most of the acting is bad, painfully bad, to be blunt, almost porno movie bad. Given that most of the enormous cast are actually professional actors, I have to assume the fault lies with bad directing. There's too much hamming it up.

With better comedic acting in the secondary roles and some improvements in the script, this movie might have reached a level of respectability.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Yun-Fat Chow makes this movie watchable.
27 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I don't think I was in the audience this movie was intended for. In the early scenes they are somewhere underground in Manhattan and a bunch of delinquent punk thugs are picking on one of our soon to be heroes, a super-pickpocket.

Mr. Pickpocket is a martial arts expert. Where did he learn? Running a movie projector at a run down Asian movie theater in NYC.

He bumps into the monk, literally, and steals the scroll, briefly. Next thing you know, the self-taught martial arts pickpocket is the monk's sidekick.

Now IMDb says this movie is based on a comic book. So was Barbarella. I really like Barbarella. This movie doesn't have the same staying power, but it provides a couple hours of distraction.

It is moderately interesting to watch the martial arts moves and try to guess how much the actors actually know. But when they go floating up into the air, defying gravity, and rotating around, I say who cares? Why do movies these days always include such reality-busting nonsense? On the other hand, my cat was glued to the set; she's actually pretty good at jumping up into the air and spinning like a top, so I guess she was interested in the technique.

The only reason I decided to watch it on cable was Yun-Fat Chow. He is such a first-rate actor that it is interesting to watch him even in this fluff.

This is really an Asian-American Raiders of the Lost Ark type movie. Yun-Fat Chow is really a fine actor and should get more solid roles in Hollywood. Hey, Spielberg, wouldn't Yun-Fat go well with Harrison Ford in a movie?

So who is this movie intended for? I would say the teen to 20s pop-think crowd. Either that, or cats.

The rest of the acting wasn't bad, but Yun-Fat is the only reason a serious moviegoer would find this movie interesting.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Prisoner (1967–1968)
10/10
A masterpiece
19 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, I have never seen voting stats like this on IMDb! I don't know what more needs to be said.

The vote is especially remarkable since I suspect not everyone fully gets the concept behind the series.

This was a continuation of the earlier series Danger Man. I happened upon an episode of Danger Man that makes this more or less clear, where Drake steps on the toes of someone very, very important. It had to do with a coup in South America organized by an industrialist with phony credentials but very high connections, as I recall.

This series was way ahead of its time in its presentation of behind the scenes power politics.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Rock (1996)
7/10
Above average for its genre
19 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Nicholas Cage is not my idea of a great actor, and I am not a fan of this type of movie -- heck, I don't even know what it would be called, action thriller? That said, I found this movie entertaining. Perhaps that is because I don't watch this type of movie, so I am not going to see it as a collection of clichés, as one commentator remarked.

The key, of course, was Sean Connery. There is wonderful irony in learning he is one of the great British secret agents, yet has been a prisoner for decades. It is almost like learning Superman is still alive, but squirreled away in Guantanamo.

More precisely, Connery's character is reminiscent of Patrick McGoohan's The Prisoner. If only the series could be revived with Connery in the lead! At any rate, I am a great fan of Connery, as an actor. Cage, he needs to be in the right role, and this fits him fine. The two together have an interesting chemistry.

So it is watchable, even if you don't watch this type of movie.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Patriot (2000)
2/10
This IS NOT an American movie!!!
6 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Foreign readers: Don't blame America for this movie! It's got a German director and an Australian star - Gibson. And Gibson has a track record of anti-British movies.

Most Americans know this movie is not accurate. It's sad that some foreigners might form opinions based on this vile, hate-mongering manure.

To watch this movie is to learn what it feels like to be covered head to toe with sweet smelling vomit.

The British soldiers are portrayed as 18th century versions of Nazi Storm Troopers, and Jason Isaacs playing a fictional Col. William Tavington as an unbridled sadist who kills, burns and pillages just for the fun of it.

The high point of the movie, so to speak, is when Tavington locks the townspeople in a church -- after they tell him what he wants, ratting out a fellow patriot -- and burns the entire town, women, children, men, boys, to death.

I know something about the history of the Revolution, and had never heard of this. Apparently, it is based on a Nazi war crime, not anything done by the British. The movie is directed by a German, Roland Emmerich, which perhaps tells us something.

The movie seems to follow the Mel Gibson formula of ultra good guys vs ultra bad guys (usually the British) with lots of graphic blood and guts violence. It would be technically interesting to count how many times we must witness a musket ball hitting a body and blood spurting out, for someone with a strong stomach. Is there a point here?

The acting in the movie, overall, is nothing special, but Gibson's performance is by far the worst. Witnessing this travesty by Gibson kept bringing to mind the parodies of silent picture acting from "Singing in the Rain." People all around him are dying, yet the best Gibson can summon up in the emotions department is empty, over-blown gesturing. This might have qualified as acting in the 1920s, but not today.

Mel Gibson could act, once. He did it in The Year of Living Dangerously. But now apparently it is too much work for him, despite the $25 million they paid him for this performance.

I don't mind a good old fashioned movie with heroes and villains, and I'm sure there were heroes and villains on both sides of the Revolution. But this movie doesn't find them. All it finds are caricatures of heroes and villains.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Showgirls (1995)
7/10
Rises above nudity through interesting character development
19 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know why some people are so upset about this movie. I saw the DVD around and ignored it. I happened to watch it on cable without knowing what I was watching. It ran several times, and several times I changed channels early on.

Then one time I happened to stick with it, largely for the incredible quantity of babe bods. And then a funny thing happened - the movie became interesting. The people in the movie kept changing. The acting was fine, the characterizations were consistent. But as the movie unfolded, you saw different sides of the characters. It's all too rare these days to see character development and depth.

What you were essentially seeing was what the lead, Nomi, was seeing. the question for a beautiful woman like that in Vegas was who can you trust? Repeatedly, she had to make a call, despite the best efforts to sweet talk her. Most of the time she got it right.

She also had to make decisions about morality and personal values in a place largely devoid of them, or at least according to the movie's premise. That is what life is about for most of us, whether we are a showgirl or an accountant. In the end, her values were higher than the accountant's.

Sure some of the characters in this movie are unattractive. But it can take real acting talent to portray a jerk, unless that's the real you.

All the characters in the film are strongly and clearly drawn. And Elizabeth Berkley apparently did a pretty convincing job of not being herself, if you read her bio trivia item: "Once sat next to a man on an international flight who watched Showgirls (1995) on his in-seat video screen and never recognized her."

That's something for an actress to be proud of! I don't know how realistic this movie is in its portrayal of Las Vegas. While I have been to Nevada, I have never had any desire to visit there. All the gambling towns I have seen have been remarkably joyless places.

What struck me about the stage dance numbers is that they verged on live sex shows, under the guise of art. Indeed, all the dancing, public or private, had a layer of sex. I guess that's the point. If you are looking for dance as abstract art, this ain't it. (Although the main stage number has some of the earthiness of Stravinsky's La Sacre du Printemps, as sort of faux art.)

Perhaps that's what Nomi aspired to, but Vegas wasn't the place to find it.

There was plenty of nudity and sex in Showgirls. But, unlike some movies of this ilk, it rises above this through the interesting character development. It doesn't have the depth of a truly great film, but it has the depth of a very good film. And it is far more interesting than some big name movies I have seen that have turned out to be flat and too conventional.

What's with all the Razzies? Showgirls certainly is nowhere near the league of Titanic, the gold standard for razzies.

I think both Elizabeth Berkley and Gina Gershon did fine jobs acting, and both were certainly easy on the eye.

The closest movie I would compare it to is Nashville, which was also about clawing your way to fame. The first time I saw Nashville, I didn't get; I was bored. It didn't have the plot structure of a standard film. But once I understood the unique approach of Nashville, I realized how extraordinary it was. While not quite on the same level, I think people should look at Showgirls again with an open mind.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3rd Rock from the Sun (1996–2001)
10/10
Most realistic show on television
3 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It has been a long time since My Favorite Martian, but it is nice to finally see a program on television again that portrays space aliens in a sympathetic light. They are not all trying to turn humans into iPod people, you know.

This is not to say that all space aliens are friendly. I especially liked the episode when the mission saved the Earth from the big, bad beautiful invading aliens. I gather that some of you were rooting for the other side. All I can say is that there is a lesson here for all of us: You have to know who your friends are.

And if I might offer a word of friendly advice: Watch out for Officer Don.

All in all, I would say this is the most realistic drama series on television in this quadrant.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hopscotch (1980)
10/10
If you find it, buy it.
1 July 2007
To lump this with LeCarre as a thriller is extremely misleading. This is a comedy. But it is not a silly comedy. The portrayal of the CIA is quite plausible, within limits. The contrast between the American and British styles is also quite interesting and plausible.

This is a movie where the elements fall into place effortlessly. It doesn't look like an expensive movie, though. Listen to the extra feature on the DVD by Neame and you will learn that there was quite a bit of serendipity to this movie.

The best part is the remarkable chemistry between Mathau and Glenda Jackson. This alone is enough to give the otherwise far fetched story believability. What we see are two highly intelligent people in a relationship, something rarely seen in movies these days. And they are not just bad actors pretending to be intelligent.

This is a delicious satire of government, the CIA, and bad bosses in general. Like 9-5, it is the vicarious revenge we all wish we could take on a bad boss.

How many comedies do you know that you can watch repeatedly and still laugh at them? Most times, after one or two viewings the laughs dry up. Not Hopscotch. Every time I see it I laugh and enjoy it just about as much as the first time. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it is just a really good film. But there are very few comedies in this class. For that reason, you should just rent most comedies. This one is an exception.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
High Noon (1952)
10/10
I don't get it
1 July 2007
I am puzzled; how can anyone rate this as less than a 10? Can anyone find a single flaw in this movie? Any way it could have been better? This is the gold standard by which Westerns should be measured, not to mention any drama. It simply doesn't get any better than this.

As film, High Noon does an exceptional job of giving depth to characters quickly. The situation defines their character. Katy Jurado' role is one of the exceptions, where there is more talking, but we see unfold an exceptionally interesting person.

How many movies can you watch repeatedly over the years as you grow up and grow old that continue to move you and continue to reveal new depth and meaning? That is the measure of art.

This movie is timeless, and has a lesson for humanity of all eras and all nationalities. It will be watched a hundred years from now, a thousand years from now, if civilization survives that long. The message of this film is that this is not at all certain. It is up to us.

I suspect the reason some people down-rate High Noon is not for the quality of the film, but the message. Like John Wayne, they just don't like what it says about America.

Well I've got bad news for you, John, the Frank Millers have killed the sheriff and now run this country. The gang has gotten elected president and vice president. And the townspeople and ministers acquiesced like sheep or even actively supported it as "good for business."
89 out of 144 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A time capsule
24 June 2007
Let's face it, ultimately this is a collection of funny skits than a coherent movie. And it is conceivable that competent, less famous actors could have still made this movie work.

But what makes this movie immortal is its immortal cast. It is a time capsule of 20th century comedy. It is a joy watching it just to see masters at work.

This movie is the definition of a "blockbuster," a movie crammed with great stars. You couldn't fit many more in if you tried.

A younger generation might not appreciate this, and might not find the movie as amusing. But they should watch it, if for no other reason, to attain basic cultural literacy.

On the other hand, it is interesting to contrast this movie with The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming! It is also a semi-blockbuster, though probably for a different reason: that so many fine actors wanted to avail themselves of the opportunity to thumb their noses at the anti-communist censors of the 1950s, I bet.

But what made The Russians stronger is that it was not non-stop slapstick comedy. In Mad, about the only sane person is Spencer Tracy, and he is heavily outweighed by the insanity. In The Russians, there is more balance to contrast with the humor. And so I find I can put the movie on a day after watching it and still laugh at the scenes. I suspect once every year or three is enough for Mad.

At the time it came out, Mad was a must see movie. It still is. Go make some popcorn, don't think too hard, and just enjoy it for what it is. And maybe read up on IMDb and elsewhere about the background of these great actors.

BTW, I happened to read Sid Caesar's autobiography, "Caesar's Hours," in which he talks about the filming of Mad. It is good reading. And reportedly all the actors had a heck of a good time making this film.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
To be continued
24 June 2007
I see some honesty is beginning to surface on this movie, so I will just say at this point that I think the only explanation for this movie being so horrendous is that the director deliberately sabotaged it. Nobody could ruin such good material by accident.

He turned all of the characters on their heads, or at least on their faces. It's as though he got tired of people trying to explain the book to him, saying "don't you get it?" and decided he was the director, and he could do whatever he wanted. Nothing, absolutely nothing in this movie corresponds to the original concept and spirit.

It is a total travesty.

----

I've seen, heard, read them all. But I never thought a version of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" would put me to sleep.

The best part is Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin, although there could have been more of Rickman's trademark sarcastic bite. It's as though the director was holding back the actors.

The worst part, by far, is playing Zaphod Beeblebrox as a redneck rock star. Beeblebrox, the delinquent but ultra-cool intergalactic president, with a Southern accent? Are you mad? I won't blame the actor for this, (Sam Rockwell clearly can act, given his completely different performance in Galaxy Quest) as I am not sure the director read the book. There seems to be no understanding of any of the character of characters by the director. None.

Each version of the HHGG trilogy has been slightly different, but each has contained the key verbiage essential to the message of political and social satire. Until this one.

This version appears to be a sort of adolescent Star Wars, with good guys and bad guys -- or good bad guys vs bad good guys -- chasing each other through space and hyperspace. Sorry, that's not what HHGG is about.

This seems to be one of those Hollywood conceits where somebody gets a contract, reads a few pages of the book, decides it is too much work, and writes the screenplay pretty much from scratch. It seems they didn't even make it far enough in to realize Trillian is an astrophysicist on the dole. Nope, all she is is a pretty girl at a party who got picked up by an alien. Talk about earth girls being easy!

Now I know Douglas Adams contributed some of the changes. But the ones who actually made this movie seem to know little about the book aside from a sort of Cliff's Notes of the plot. (Have they Cliff Noted HHGG for college classes yet?) I will have to finish this review, and the movie, after I take a nap.

In the meantime, I suggest you read the books; I promise you they will not put you to sleep, provided you aren't brain dead. Or see the BBC television production. Or listen to the radio series. Or listen to the book read aloud on books on tape, or whatever it is they did that time. Then you will understand what this masterpiece was about.

* I want to tear this movie to shreds, but so far have restrained myself. The directing was an abomination, an insult, a travesty of an insult of an abomination. Advice: Do Not Watch It!
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This Is Your Life (1950–1993)
9/10
Stands the test of time
24 June 2007
I'm afraid the only thing I remember about the original "This is your life" is the parodies by Bob and Ray. That left me thinking of the series as more of a cliché, and I suspect with the distance of time, others may also be left with the wrong impression of the show.

I had the opportunity to watch some of the originals on the "This is your life, the ultimate collection" three DVD set. They are very well done. It is apparent that Ralph Edwards worked to avoid falling into a rigid formula. There are many twists used in the way he lured the subjects onto the show.

But more important, the material of the show is shaped by the lives of the subjects, rather than a formula. The researchers find lots of interesting details that tell the true story of the person, rather than the PR image or public persona. For example, we learn that Bud Abbott did some generous philanthropy to help city kids, and some of those kids appeared on the show. It is all done in a way that has emotional impact, without being cloying or manipulative; Abbott seemed truly embarrassed this personal side of his life was coming out. And it is good journalism, digging for the telling details, rather than the mindless, superficial interviews we too often see on network shows these days.

What makes this collection especially interesting is that they are an invaluable historical document. Many of the subjects are dead by now (though not all -- Dick Clark and Shirley Jones are still with us) but more important, the acquaintances who appeared in the shows from the 1950s and even the 1970s are mostly long gone.

The one disappointment of the collection is that there are not more non-celebrities. The main non-celebrity included is Hanna Bloch Kohner, who survived many years in a concentration camp, a program done in 1953, perhaps the first to feature a Holocaust survivor's story on national television.

These shows stand the test of time, and are still interesting today. They would be a great addition to any public or school library.

Ralph Edwards also deserves to be remembered. He played an important role in the early days of television - very, very early. I came across a schedule for the very first week of broadcasting back in the early 1940s for what, as I recall, was to become the NBC television network. Ralph Edwards was listed as the host of the show Truth or Consequences - something that does not show up anywhere on IMDb. Now that's a pioneer! The network's broadcasting was, of course, suspended by WWII.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Titanic (1997)
3/10
Downright amazingly bad
22 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
(THIS *&%$#! COMMENT MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS.)

(Or it may not.

At least it may spoil your appetite for this film.)

I have to give James Cameron credit for a sort of devious ingenuity: He created a movie so repulsively bad that a reasonably sophisticated viewer would find it unbearable to sit through. Hence, so many glowing reviews.

I watched it, once. But it keeps popping up on TV. And even for free it is not worth watching. Five minutes these days is my absolute limit. Each time I stumble across it, this movie just seems to get worse and worse.

The acting is so bad I'm surprised Cameron didn't just make this into a sort of Disney cartoon. Disney's Buena Vista does this sort of simplistic bubble gum movie better, such as White Fang; Ethan Hawke as Jack Conroy was more credible than DiCaprio as Dawson. And the aerial computer graphics look way too much like cartoon animation.

As to historical accuracy, give me a break!!! I can't say this is any worse than the other nonsense to come out of Hollywood, though. Frankly, anyone who takes any so-called non-fiction or historical movies as more than 1 percent accurate is a fool.

Hey, I am willing to suspend a certain amount of disbelief for a good movie, but this one demands way too much. They pull a drawing that has been sitting on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean for 80 years that is in excellent condition and hold it up as proof of why it was worth hundreds of millions of dollars to find the Titanic.

And what is this precious work of art? A Rembrandt? A DaVinci? A Van Gogh, at least? No, it is an amateurish pornographic sketch. Excuse me? Maybe some 21st century girl would pose naked at the drop of a hat, but a proper girl in the 1910s?

Hey, if you believe this nonsense, then the rest of the movie will seem comparatively plausible, and I can see how you might find this movie "historically accurate."

I don't mind if you enjoyed this movie; that's what movies are for. Tastes vary. Some people prefer emotional manipulation that is more subtle. I would hope you Titanic fans would explore cinema a little more, and not insist that this is the greatest movie ever made, perfect, etc. What's with all these superlatives? Does Cameron have a claque?

Look, before you say Titanic is the best movie EVER, (which implies you have seen every movie every made) at least go see Gone With the Wind. I dare you. Then see if you can even mention Titanic in the same breath.

And I think potential viewers should be forewarned that not everybody is going to like this movie. That's what reviews are for.

Spoiler ahead: OK, the ship was named "Titanic" and it sank. That much they got right. Well, sort of: it was the RMS Titanic, not the SS Titanic.

If you want to learn the true story, try going to the BBC page "Titanic: Sinking the Myths," by Paul Louden-Brown.
11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Monte Walsh (2003 TV Movie)
10/10
Westerns don't get any better than this
22 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is a made for TV movie? Hmmm, maybe I should try watching more TV.

This isn't a "western," this is a work of art. Every element, every line, every character falls into place perfectly, like a work of nature, rather than a mere movie script. I guess one reason is that the pacing, the rhythm is just right.

The emotions generated are uncontrived and sincere. The characters have remarkable depth. You really care whether they live or die.

And like a true tragedy, you even care when a bad guy dies, having a sense that it is a waste of a life that could, and should have turned out differently.

Perhaps what is so remarkable about this movie is that, like High Noon, it does not exactly have a happy ending. It is a sad but extraordinarily beautiful movie.

If you haven't seen it, you may even want to buy a copy. I have seen it several times, and I have found it just as beautiful and moving each time. It is worth watching just for the extraordinary cinematography alone.
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Crossfire Trail (2001 TV Movie)
4/10
Just barely watchable
22 June 2007
If this had been made AFTER "Monte Walsh" I would have said Simon Wincer had gone senile, to put it politely. But since it was made before, I will forgive him.

This is the ultimate collection of tired cowboy clichés, whereas Monte Walsh breathes fresh life into the western. I guess it was something of a warmup.

Nothing wrong with Selleck's acting, but the script is hackneyed. The bad guy even wears a black hat. Hmmm, maybe this is supposed to be a comedy.

My advice: watch Monte Walsh, and while you're at it, "Quigley Down Under," and don't spoil your appetite with "Crossfire Trail."
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Dated? Good!
20 June 2007
Judging from these reviews, many young people simply do not get "The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming!" And I, for one, am very glad, very glad.

I'm glad they did not have to grow up with bomb shelters in their home, with air raid drills in school, with nightmares once a month of nuclear fallout raining the smell of death upon one's home town. Back then Nevil Shute's "On the Beach" was on the reading list for junior high school students, nuclear winter was a common theme on Twilight Zone episodes. In other words, nuclear war between Russia and America was a very real possibility.

Back then it was nearly impossible to conceive of Russians as human beings, as strange as that sounds now. Adults knew all too well the price of saying something, anything nice about the Soviet Union, a lesson they learned in the 1950s from red-baiting demagogues like Richard Nixon and Senator Joseph McCarthy. Failure to condemn Communists could result in blacklisting. So American young people never saw the Russians in a normal, human light; it was probably the same for Russian children's views of Americans.

There probably were plenty of American adults who harbored fantasies of fighting invading Russians with their shotguns and hunting rifles, perhaps as a last line of defense after a nuclear exchange.

This was the poisonous atmosphere in which "The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming!" burst like a ray of sunshine.

The Russians as kind-hearted (and somewhat scared) human beings? What a novel idea! With the arrival of this movie, people began to consider that perhaps we might be a bit wrong-headed too. "The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming!" is a movie that marked a seismic shift in public consciousness, much as "Roots" did in the late 1970s.

All of this may seem quaint to a younger generation, thank God. But if this movie had been made fifteen years earlier, you can be certain that all involved would have been hauled before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and threatened with blacklisting.

The lesson was short-lived, because those who dared question the Vietnam war just a couple of years later also risked investigation by the FBI and HUAC.

And now what have we got? Leadership (on both sides) that resorts to the same hateful tactics of portraying the enemy in stereotypes as a sub-human incarnation of evil. Perhaps there is, after all, a tiny little lesson that the current generation could still learn from this movie.

There is also a lesson about directing the current crop of directors could learn. While there are comedic characters in the movie that are silly and shallow - and quite funny like Jonathan Winters - they are balanced by sane, normal well-acted characters, like Brian Keith and Alan Arkin.

Too many recent movies seem to think humor is an excuse for bad acting and superficial characterizations all around. It is no longer funny when every single one of the people in the movie is an idiot. You need to balance and contrast the insanity with some sanity.

Sure the spinsters on the motorcycle are silly. And if you had everyone acting like that, it would seem stupid. But as it is, bits like that, and the drunk chasing the horse, are pretty funny. And they are meaningul; you can imagine that if something like the Russians invading happened, there would be some people who would act like fools.

There are some obvious parallels between this movie and the earlier It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. While the later is certainly funny, I suspect The Russians is more likely to make you laugh out loud spontaneously because there isn't so much continuous comedy.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Adventures of Superman (1952–1958)
7/10
Better than you might remember
3 March 2007
If you watched these when you were a kid, especially if you did so back in the 50s or 60s, watching the episodes on DVD may surprise you.

The production values of the black and white episodes during the first two years were very good. The resolution of the images was sharp as a tack, and the black and white tonal gradation and lighting was very professional. Yet on the old black and white sets, much of that would have been lost.

On the other hand, they took some cheap shortcuts, such as inserting stock footage that was surprisingly out of date, sometimes it seems from the 30s or even 20s.

In the third season they moved to color, even though according to the commentary, the show was not actually broadcast in color until 1965. (Color broadcasting began in 1954, but most people could not afford the $1,000 color television sets in a time when cars cost about $2,000.) The old black and white episodes are more geared to adults than the later color versions, which go with a more comic book approach. Some BW episodes are more like Perry Mason mysteries, though the quality and type of approach varies all over the place in those early years.

This is also the beginning of television, and the producers were pioneering a new medium, not always quite sure what approach to take, or which would work. There is an obvious influence of the old radio dramas, seen especially in the announced opening. Some of the early episodes seem to follow the format of the old Hardy Boys boy's book series of mysteries, complete with hidden stairways to secret basements, haunted lighthouses, and secret tunnels to boathouses. I wonder if any of the Superman writers had been ghost writers for the Stratemeyer Syndicate, which actually wrote the Hardy Boys books.

The commentaries are fairly interesting, though often redundant, and sometimes inaccurate. The commentator does not appear to be good with numbers. The consensus seems to be that the series began filming in 1951, but began airing in 1952. The commentator says that the show has been broadcast from every presidential administration since Eisenhower, yet Truman was president in 51, 52 and into early 53. He also keeps going on and on about how little boys would have been watching the shows on tiny 8 or 10 inch black and white TVs in 1951. Not if they weren't on the air. And he says Jack Larson was a very young 17 (or did he say 19?) when the series began, yet IMDb shows he was 23.

What would be more telling about those old TVs is that they cut off portions of the image, especially the corners, but also tops and bottoms. So the occasional moment when Superman's springboard is visible today, would not have shown up on anything but professional TV monitors.

The commentator also remarks on how it seems Clark Kent didn't have such a large office. I've got news for you, viewers, I have never seen a newspaper that had offices for reporters. The publisher gets an office, the managing editor gets an office, with windows onto the newsroom, but just about everyone else is in one big room. The writers show a certain amount of insight into newspaper work, many writers having been reporters at some point, but the show obviously didn't want to pay for extras standing around in a newsroom, I presume.

But the best part, in my opinion, of the first year, was Phyllis Coates, who played Lois Lane for one year. She was (is) a fine actress, who seemed to give the show a certain gravitas lacking in later episodes. And she was a babe!

The move to color was a stroke of genius. This enabled them to keep reselling the series many years down the line. And the color holds up quite well.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Not just about Japan
1 March 2007
If you are thinking of watching this, you need to know what your are getting into first. This is a violent movie, in the extreme.

I do not ordinarily watch violent movies. But I am glad I watched this one, even though I had to turn away a few times. The subject matter is about violence, and the director pulls no punches.

It is so easy to romanticize war, either in victory or defeat. This movie clearly has a message for the Japanese people about WWII that the director intends them never to forget. That it was received so well, speaks well of the Japanese people's honesty. And it has a message for her Asian neighbors who suffered at the hands of Japanese soldiers, that perhaps hate is no longer appropriate.

Viewing it as an American, I was struck by how different the image is from that of the well-disciplined soldier presented almost as a polite stereotype in Hollywood movies. An American director could not have gotten away with such a movie. However, I can't help wondering if this is perhaps not exactly a representative view of what Japanese soldiers went through.

The movie is told very effectively through its plot, following the inquiries of the war widow into the death of her husband. As the truth comes out, it hits you in the gut much as it would have hit this widow.

At the same time, the director apparently did not intend for this film to be viewed too narrowly as an antiwar movie. It is not just about war, and it is not just about Japanese soldiers, it is about human beings, and what any of us might do in similar circumstances.
27 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
If you get a chance, watch it.
24 February 2007
How many movies have you watched that you barely remember a week later? And how many movies have you watched just once, yet you remember them decades later? Our Vines Have Tender Grapes is the later. I have only seen it once or twice, yet it has left an indelible mark.

This is not a movie with fireworks and hyped up characters. It is a classic "slice of life" type movie that seems such a naturalistic rendition of life on a midwest farm. And what makes it work so marvelously is the beautifully natural acting of all concerned, especially Margaret O'Brien, who is an absolute delight to watch. There have been some great child actresses, but none better and more natural than her.

And for those mainly familiar with his bad guy roles, Edward G. Robinson's more relaxed and gentle acting style here is a revelation. Robinson was so typecast that one assumes he was playing himself; but here we see by contrast how great his criminal thug performances truly were.

Agnes Moorehead was a truly great actress whom the current generation may not be familiar with. This movie is a great way to see her at her finest.

While there are some truly great actors in the current generation, as good as any in the past, there is so much bad acting that bad acting almost seems natural in the movies and on TV. Should we mention Titanic here? But with truly great acting, actors don't look like they are acting. This movie is the personification of great acting. Perhaps it would be a good idea for every actor and director to watch Our Vines Have Tender Grapes once a year as a reminder of what their craft is about.

This movie does not get a lot of air play. If you see it in the schedule or find it in a store, watch it! You won't forget it.
15 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Hits the mark every time
23 February 2007
If I were an actor in search of work, this is the movie that I would want on my resume. Everything about the movie, and everyone in it, is perfect.

The music, the cinematography, the writing, even the opening credits, is spot on. And it holds up beautifully to repeated viewing.

I am not an expert on the work of Laura San Giacomo, but here she delivers a tour de force. She is tough and vulnerable, crazy and wise all at the same time. Yet without such great acting, her fantastic looks might have created the image of a much more shallow ditzy dame. One cannot help falling in love with her in this movie, which makes Quigley's astonishing restraint all the more honorable.

Mention should be made of Alan Rickman in a quintessential role for his dry sarcasm. The part fits him like a glove.

All the acting is impeccable, including the aborigines, such as Gnarnayarrahe Waitairie, Paul Gurrumurruwuy Wunungmurra, Dorothy Warnggarrknga, and especially Cory Tjapaltjarri!

The Sharps rifle, which is still produced in reproductions, is also quite impressive.

If you enjoy this movie, you may also like Monte Walsh, in which Selleck also plays a humane cowboy. It is perhaps an even more nuanced performance. And the cinematography is also great.

And then there is Ike: Countdown to D Day. How unlikely a role can you get for Selleck? Yet, almost unbelievably, he nails it, without merely mimicking Eisenhower. He did it by really studying the character and biography of Ike, and of the historical context of the events. I guess it goes to show that sometimes there is no substitution for education and intelligence in acting.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Mystified
23 February 2007
What exactly is so funny about two superficial egotists shouting at each other at the top of their lungs on a train for 15 minutes at a stretch is a mystery to me. If I had not know from the cover, I would have assumed this was a drama, a boring one. And a painful one, given that Barrymore plays an emotionally and physically abusive husband (?) whom Lombard has ditched, and tries to keep ditched.

I'm a guy, not a feminist, but all I can think of is that I wish Barrymore would jump off the train, or get pushed.

Screech, screech, screech - that's the level of writing in this movie. One moment Lombard is a incompetent nincompoop actress, fade out, and then she is a great star and she is living with Barrymore, and hating him. Where'd the writing go? I listen to all the screeching, and can't help wondering What's the point???

If there had been some real writing that established a real emotional bond between the two, we might have felt some tension in their bickering. That's what was created in Pygmalion, the antecedent to My Fair Lady, where there was real admiration and love, but hidden behind the squabbling. I never felt there was any emotional bond here between Lombard and Barrymore. All I saw was bickering.

The only humorous element, aside from the putty nose, is the Matthew Clark character, who for some unexplained reason goes around pasting up The End is Near stickers in the train on people's backs, windows, hats, lampshades, etc.

I happen to like good comedy, and Lombard is quite capable in this area. You would be far better off spending your time with My Man Godfrey, a masterpiece of its genre, and To Be or Not to Be, a masterpiece that is truly unique.

Barrymore is of course quite capable of doing drama, such as the immortal Grand Hotel, which is almost a black comedy, way ahead of its time.

Lombard comes the closest to doing some real acting here, although she seems at times to be doing a wan imitation of Greta Garbo. The rest of the cast seems to be acting that they are acting.

This is a movie only a theater groupie could enjoy. If you are not, and this movie is inflicted upon you, bring earplugs, aspirin and a book.
23 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed