Reviews

Boring and laugh-less, this was a real waste of time.

I was expecting something like "Rat Race", but that's not what this was.

Rachel Leigh Cook and Alicia Silverstone were unappealing and, in fact, annoying.

Woody Harrelson and John Cleese, two old comic pros, were unfunny at best, at worst completely tedious.

The only chuckle inducing moment: The line "This is the worst date I've ever been on." The problem is that it also reflected the way I felt about the movie.

This is a VERY strange film. It has some memorable moments, but overall, it doesn't work, probably because it, and the audience, doesn't really seem to know what it actually is.

Is it a comedy? It has a few funny bits.

Is it a drama? It has a few moments of pathos and some explorations of hero worship, fatherhood, and mid-life crisis.

Is it an adventure film? There are a few attempts at excitement that fall curiously flat.

Is it a sci-fi/fantasy? Actually it seems pretty rooted in a warped reality, except for the exotic (computer-generated sea creatures.)

Is it a satire of documentary film-making? It has several sequences that seem to imply this.

Is it an homage to Jacques Cousteau? There are a few moments of admiration for the undersea explorer. (The boat is not called "The Calypso" but "The Belafonte.")

Is it a parody of Jacques Cousteau? The fake documentary movie clips seem to be poking fun at the late, great oceanographer.

Is it a Bill Murray vehicle? Although Bill Murray is the star, and he is playing the type of laconic cad he has excelled at playing in the past, he seems to be phoning it in here. (I guess he already, more effectively, used up his "guy-in-his-fifties-experiencing-midlife-crisis" shtick in "Lost in Translation".)

Overall, like an exploratory ocean journey, this film is all over the map.

"Yellow Submarine" is a great film but it's not because of the plot or even the whimsical, non-sequitur filled dialogue. "Yellow Submarine" works best as a series of loosely connected music videos that pre-date MTV by 12 years.

If you grew up with MTV and you think that most music videos consist of 80's Hair-Metal bands "in concert" or rappers in hot tubs with women in bikinis, take a look at some of the musical numbers in "Yellow Submarine".

You have "Only a Northern Song" which is presented with Andy Warhol style pop-art images. "Nowhere Man" is a whimsical, trippy, rainbow colored cartoon. "When I'm Sixty Four" is illustrated by a "Sesame Street" style numerical countdown. Even "All Together Now", for which The Beatles themselves actually appear on screen, contains little camera tricks and quick cut edits that are common tools of more recent music videos.

The two best segments in the movie, in my opinion, are "Eleanor Rigby" and "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". "Eleanor Rigby" uses black and white still photos of what is apparently Liverpool rotoscoped with occasional splashes of color to illustrate the dreariness of the lives of "all the lonely people." The full-color rotoscoped images for "Lucy", such as the can-can dancing chorus line and the horse running in the field, are beautiful.

If you are a fan of The Beatles, great animation, or music video, this film is for you.

This film about a woman who returns from Cuba to New York City with both smuggled diamonds and smallpox is a fairly typical film-noirish melodrama of the late 40's/early 50's. Will the police and Health Department officials find her in time to save NYC from an epidemic? The film has all the elements one expects from this type of film: great black and white cinematography, romantic subplots, over-the-top shady characters (one played by Jim Backus, "Mr. Howell" of "Gilligan's Island" fame) and too-good-to-be-true good guys, and great New York locations. It also has a hammy narration and some corny dialogue, but it is a fairly suspenseful and generally fun way to spend 75 minutes.

However, the situation which probably seemed like far-fetched (but plausible) fiction in 1950, seems frighteningly possible today. The anthrax attacks of 2001, the fears of weaponized smallpox being used by terrorists, the concerns about vaccinations and the amount and safety of vaccines, the inability of governmental agencies to work together and share information effectively all come to mind when one watches this film. This gives it a bit more resonance today than other more dated noirish "chase" films of the same era.

Overall, only a pretty good film but definitely worth a watch for the subject matter and its relevance to today's fears about bio-terrorism.

This film is a somewhat entertaining way to spend 2 hours, but it isn't very good, especially considering the talent involved in it (particularly the two major Oscar-winning movie stars in the leads.)

In some ways, it feels like two movies spliced together: the first half about the disheartened priest trying to minister to people who have grown to resent him for building a leper hospital on their island and the second half, a cheesy disaster film about that same priest attempting to rescue the patients before the hospital is engulfed by a volcano.

Overall, the story is generally contrived and silly (especially once the volcano rescue begins.) The special effects are uneven with the volcano being somewhat unconvincing with various scenes alternating from noisy and smoky to clear and quiet even though only a few minutes have passed and the characters haven't walked but a few yards away. In fact, the volcano effects are akin to those you might see on "Gilligan's Island".

In addition, the long line of people on a trek to escape danger was done much more effectively in movies like the "Poseidon Adventure".

Generally, the film IS fun to watch; it just isn't particularly good.

A quick read of the title and plot outline for this movie, and you might think it is going to be a weird sci-fi movie, a heavy-handed allegory, or simply a movie with a bizarre sounding title ("Lorenzo's Oil" or "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" come to mind.) However, except for its obviously odd sounding title, the movie is a gentle fantasy that approaches its allegory in a less than heavy-handed manner (although it is not particularly subtle.)

However, any lack of subtlety is mitigated by the fact that what we are seeing on the screen is the boy's version of events. Although some portions of the film are played as straight drama, a few scenes, such as the dance between Gramp and the King and the scene with the war orphans, remind us that this is indeed a fantasy. During the framing story of the boy being interviewed in the police station, the boy is bald. Did he really have green hair? Did he really see the orphans in the forest? Did Gramp really perform for a King?

Despite the unbelievable nature of the boy's story, his understanding of the effects of war on children (he is a war orphan himself) is more vivid than that of the adults he encounters. The teacher views the war orphans of objects for her pity and philanthropy (well-meaning though she is). The women in the grocery store argue about geo-politics and military strength, only briefly focusing on the boy, probably the only actual war orphan they know.

Overall, the film is not sappy and sentimental, and much of the dialogue and interaction between the characters is surprisingly natural. Although many of the symbols and themes of the film are obvious, they are no less effective.

An interesting film, especially when considered in relation to the geo-political realities of its time, but its overall message is timeless: Most wars throughout history have occurred between peoples who considered each other "different"--wars of conquest, wars of genocide etc. However, that kind of hatred starts at the individual level, such as when you can't accept a boy whose hair happens to be green.

When I was a kid back in the 70's, "Planet of the Apes" movies were a big deal. I even had the toy action figures. I threw 'em away long ago. I wonder how much they would be worth now. :-( However, I never caught this film; it's the one that describes how the apes came to begin their domination of the world. It plays out like a mediocre 1970's sci-fi tv show. The performances are simplistic; the ape makeup, though still impressive, is a bit lazy. (Some of the foreground, not just background, extras seem to be simply wearing masks.) The action scenes are more confusing than exciting. However, as a piece in the puzzle of the "Apes" saga it is a must-see. It answers some questions leftover from earlier movies and sets up the next film in the series. However, if you only have the chance to see one "Apes" film, see the original with Charlton Heston, not this one.

"Cheyenne Autumn" is a good movie that takes an interesting approach (for its time) to its subject matter, but it does have its flaws. It's definitely worth a watch as a definite break with Hollywood's traditional treatment of Native American culture. At a time only slightly removed from an era when Native Americans were most commonly seen in films patting their mouths, chanting "woo woo woo woo", John Ford presents them as real people with intrinsic value. The use of actual Native American language (albeit not actually Cheyenne) without subtitles was actually quite effective, and the cultural rituals (some of which may have been based more on Hollywood fantasy than anthropological study) are presented without ridicule or condescension.

The non-Native American actors playing the Cheyenne was standard practice at the time so, although it is not PC, it is not a major flaw in the movie (although Sal Mineo seems a bit miscast and it's hard to not think of "Fantasy Island" or "The Wrath of Khan" when watching Ricardo Montalban. Gilbert Roland, on the other hand, is excellent.)

The major flaw in the movie is that it tries to do too much. The Dodge City sequence with Jimmy Stewart seems tacked on, like a segment from another movie, as do the brief sequences in Washington D.C. and New York City. Had Ford stuck to simply telling the story of the Cheyenne's trek to their home and the pursuit of the U.S. Calvary, the film would not have seemed rambling and episodic at times. This is why "Dances With Wolves" is a more effective film: it stays focused on the one small story that it is telling. "Cheyenne Autumn" tries to include all the political, economic, journalistic, and social issues relevant to the plight of the 19th Century Native American. This is admirable, but it ultimately makes the film seem unfocused.

However, there are many beautiful images, lots of celebrity cameos, excellent action scenes, and moments of great emotional depth. "Cheyenne Autumn" is not a perfect film, but it is a good film that attempts to break with some of the Western Movie cliches in relation to the portrayal of Native Americans.

DWW is an excellent movie. It has excellent performances, wonderful cinematography and moments of great power (Kevin Costner's character dancing around the fire, the final farewell from the clifftop, etc.)

At the time it was released, I didn't see it. My moviegoing companions weren't into film epics, and I assumed, and I had heard that it was basically a piece of propaganda to discuss the plight of the Native American. However, when I saw it recently, I was pleasantly surprised. There is very little overt preaching. The movie simply portrays the Native Americans as more than cartoonish villains or "noble savages". Westerns with well-developed, three-dimensional Native American characters are rare in American cinema.

The only weakness in the film is that in order to make its points, Costner chooses to portray the U.S. soldiers and other Whites in the film in broad negative strokes. Except for Costner's character, they are all bigoted, violent, and ignorant. Costner basically reverses the stereotypes of the traditional western, and the same way it was unfair and ineffective to portray the Native Americans as one-dimensional, it is unfair and ineffective to portray the Whites of that time period in the same way.

Overall, however, a rewarding film experience.