Change Your Image
awesomebooks
Reviews
The Long Good Friday (1980)
Inept
Direction=from self-indulgent to nothing special. Camera work=obnoxiously arty. Lighting=terrible. Half the time you cannot see what's going on. Editing=terrible. Half the time, you cannot tell what's going on. Script=typical gangster. Nothing special. Performances=Serviceable. Nothing special. Music=nothing special. Pacing: obnoxiously slow most of the time. It seems that those most of those who gave this a rave either have not seen many movies or their standards are awfully low. I had all I could do to get through this. I would rather watch "Key Largo," "Little Caesar," "Public Enemy," "White Heat" or even "Never Say Die."
Accident (1967)
Boring, boring, boring
It's hard to believe that this script came from one of England's finest playwrights. The dialogue is so monosyllabic and kindergartenish that it's also hard to believe that the characters are members of academia. The actors go through their parts like zombies--you can drive a truck through the lines. Nobody seems to react to anyone else or anything else. the sexual attraction for the Austrian student can be explained only by the phrase zombie meets zombie. She opens her mouth and the result is embarrassment. She has the facial expressions of a patient shot full of novacaine and the body language of the Venus de Milo. The direction is pretentious, lackluster and uninspired. Like so many "art" films, the entire movie is overshot and overly long and, quite frankly, not only do I wonder why it was ever made but why most of those who have posted here seem to regard it as the greatest thing since buckwheat.
Everything Put Together (2000)
Others have summarized this film; I don't need to.
It seems the in thing now-a-days to laud the incompetent, the amateurish and the arty, especially in films. If the acting deserves quotation marks around it and consists of people aimlessly moving about the screen, it is subtly intelligent! If the dialog (script?) (delivered in such a way that trucks could be run through it)is puerile and flat with an irritatingly improvised quality, it is brilliant. The more soporific the pace, the deeper (or loftier) the film. The more long and needless tracking shots(which take up most of the running time), the more enduring the masterpiece. The artier the editing, the more original the movie. The more inept and slipshod the direction,the more profound the director.
I really cannot believe the praise heaped on this dilettantish piece of trash by a disquieting number of IMDb's commentators who seem to be so gaga over the subject that they ignore its treatment and do not seem to mind being put to sleep or tortured. One of IMDb's commentators states that the film is fine, but difficult to watch! If it is difficult to watch, how can it be a fine film? And speaking of subject matter and to make matters worse, several IMDb commentators indicate that pregnant women should not watch this film (or this is not a film for the pregnant), a generality (i.e., all pregnant women are alike) on an intelligence level with this movie.