Change Your Image
jim-verdolini
Reviews
Expedition Unknown: Code to Gold (2015)
'Time' Folk 'Time'
For the love of God! The story begins by telling us the fellow who hid the treasure did so in 1717, that he left the codes with an innkeeper in 1720 and then that the second coded document was translated using a book code based on the Declaration of Independence, written in 1776...so, the treasure story is based on a document written 49 years before the document used to code it was written by Thomas Jefferson, who had not been born in 1717...Come on guys...Even Dan Rather's forged evidence in the Bush AWOL scandal was more convincing...Does no one else see the problem with this?
Now, consider the next issue...who had 8 tons of gold and silver coins in Virginia in 1717...No one. The Spanish were the only other folk with such coinage and they never wandered about Virginia with it. The English and french never mentioned misplacing any such a fortune. In fact there is simply no way this story could begin to be true If he had claimed finding a gold mine..maybe...or even gold bullion...but coins, sorry...no...simply no way.
Half Moon Street (1986)
Formulaic
So I'm looking for an oldie to watch on a boring afternoon. I ran into this one on YouTube and since I like Michael Cain I decided to give it a go. I wish I'd given it a miss, instead.
The film is nothing to write home about. But it's Sigourney Weaver's character that annoyed me beyond endurance. She plays Dr. Lauren Slaughter, a super intelligent, witty, educated woman, who is a research fellow at the Arab-Anglo Institute in London, and who decides to go into prostitution to fight boredom and make ends meet. At first you think she's honest and pragmatic about it. She's bored with her job, she needs the money, she turns tricks for an escort agency. That I could have respected, if that's the word I want.
Instead, she treats us to an endlessly snarly, hackneyed, pseudo- feminist attitude, which is painful to watch. She eschews makeup and nice clothes (her wits are enough to dazzle clients), and spouts commonplace, moral drivel to her "employers" and all her dates, as if to say, 'Look, I'm still intelligent, educated; and I'm a liberated woman, too, not an object.' It's not prostitution if you want to do it, you see. Men will respect you in the morning. Seriously? You're still turning tricks for money, dear. Men still pay to use your body.
You won't understand my complaint if you are a man, or if you are a modern-day feminist (all the latter understand is 'You don't criticize women. Ever.' And they think that's enough to make them good feminists). But I was annoyed and bored to half to death.
And in the end, in spite of all her intelligence, education, smart-as-a-whip comebacks ... Dr. Slaughter still gets conned, big time. Aww.
Heavy Weather (1995)
Great but for one thing
I am a Wodehouse addict. I have all his books and I know some of the dialogues in his short stories by heart. This is a very good adaptation. All the actors are great ... except for - and I really hate to say this - Peter O'Toole. How could he get it so wrong? There is too much O'Toole in his acting, and not enough Emsworth.
Yes, Lord E was dreamy and absent-minded to a degree. But that does not mean he was mentally deficient or that had a speech impediment! Peter O'Toole speaks as if he has a hot potato in his mouth, or cerebral palsy, or something along those lines, and most of the time, he acts as if he can barely move. He barely enunciates his words and hardly closes his mouth when he speaks. That is NOT what Lord E was all about at all! In fact, when his patience was sorely tried, he could express himself with a great deal of energy.
It's a real shame because the rest of the cast is very good. But IMO, Peter's "interpretation" of Lord E is so jarringly bad it completely distracts my attention from everything else.
Gran Hotel (2011)
Gets Your Attention
Let me start by saying I must be one of the few women who don't usually watch soap operas, especially when they deal with the by-now-tiresome, antiquated, melodramatic theme of "love among the social classes." Having said that, I find this (1st season) of Gran Hotel extremely entertaining. It's a whodunit set in 1905 Spain. A young girl who works at the posh Gran Hotel is murdered. Her brother arrives to the place to find out what happened to her. That is the central theme. What I like about it is that it is very fast-paced. Definitely keeps your attention. The subplots only contribute to make the story more interesting.
The actors and actresses are very good in their roles. Adriana Ozores is terrific as Dona Teresa Alarcon, the ruthless matriarch who will do anything to keep the family business going. She finds her match in Diego (Pedro Alonso), her would-be son in law, who is just as ruthless and ambitious as she is. Amaia Salamanca is very good as Alicia Alarcon, Dona Teresa's beautiful younger daughter, a reluctant peon in her mother's scheming. Luz Valdenebro and Fele Martinez play Sofia Alarcon (Dona Teresa's eldest daughter) and her husband the Marques de Vergara, respectively. The two are eternally fighting Diego for Mother's favoritism and affection. They remind me of Gooper and Mae Pollitt, in Cat on A Hot Tin Roof. Pep Antonio Munoz is superb as Ayala, the Poirot-like detective, who is determined to do his job, and who remains stubbornly unimpressed by the peremptory airs of the high and mighty.
And then there's Julio Olmedo, played rather woodenly by Yon Gonzalez (more of a Pretty Boy with Funny Hair, than anything else). He is the murdered girl's brother, intent on finding out the truth about his sister's death. Yes, what happened to his sister is tragic and awful, but unfortunately, that is not enough to make him likable. The reason why I cannot entirely sympathize with him is that he is so bloody selfish. He does not hesitate to steal the job at the Gran Hotel from another poor man, who traveled a long way (at his own expense), and had the legal papers to fill the job. He takes outrageous advantage of his friend, the saintly Andres, even though it means putting said friend's job on the line every time. He is of course Alicia's love interest. But he's not exactly my idea of a Romeo. He practically forces Alicia to renounce to her family (much as she might not like them), her way of life, everything she has, and elope with him (unemployed and high on the police's wanted list), and when Alicia gives in, he goes, "Sorry, old girl. Another clue came up and I must continue my investigations. Love will have to wait." What a guy! Now how can any self-respecting woman resist such devotion(sarcasm mode off)? I guess that is considered "romance." Well I was never one to confuse love with stupidity. Then again I've always been an impenitent cynic.
Anyway, I don't want to give too much of the plot away, so let me just say that I fully recommend this interesting series. Chekhov it ain't. Instead, it's a great deal of fun.
C'era una volta il West (1968)
Bad doesn't begin to describe it
I am an oldies fan. I love 60s,70s,80s films. I like some European westerns, too.
But this is AWFUL! Long, slow, boring, just plain bad. I won't repeat what others very accurately said, but I will add my (femenine) opinion on one thing: Claudia Cardinale's makeup is grotesque. Those false eyelashes! So thick they look like brushes. I do like makeup on actresses. I always complain about most "realistic," washed-out faces in today's films. But the MU in this film is so 60s it's ridiculous. Sure, some women wore MU in those days (mainly prostitutes). But it consisted of white powder, black-rimmed eyes (they used charcoal bits), and crimson lips. It might not be a terribly important point, but it's SO obvious.
IAC, this film is unbearable. Even Ennio Morricone's soundtrack is not up to his usual high level (The Mission, A Fistful of Dynamite, Chi Mai, etc.) He must have realized what a turkey he had to deal with and just matched the musical score to the quality of the film.
The Music Lovers (1971)
Comically bad
I first saw this film EONS ago, when I was about 13. I remember at that time, I was quite disturbed by it. Fast forward a couple of decades, or three. I saw this again ... and I LOL. I must have been tremendously innocent and unsophisticated way back then (we were at that age, in those days). I could not believe I could have been even mildly disturbed by this piece of trash. It's one of those films it's so bad, it's comical. The production is garish, the acting is over the top (even the excellent Glenda Jackson), the history inaccurate (Tchaikovsky never even met Von Meck; they just corresponded). The whole thing is so silly, you feel mortified for all those involved. Ken Russell was considered very much the "bad boy of film making," in those days (rolleyes). The only bad thing about him was his penchant for cheap theatrical thrills. This is one of those 1970s films, which at the time, were considered shocking and now are merely dismissed as ridiculous. What I find truly shocking is that some reviewers here actually praise this turkey to high heaven. Some people's taste is all in their mouth.