Reviews

Honestly, some reviews go on about this film as if it were a masterpiece directed by Alfred Hitchcock or William Wyler. It's an escargot-paced "thriller" about a man who wants to track down his late wife's lover. The actors are not bad at all, but this is a very weak script with no real pay-off, and the alleged "twist" isn't really much of anything. The characters are fairly one-dimensional as well. The average rerun of "Dr. Phil" would be more entertaining.

In Melbourne Detective Gina Sturrick (Leverne McDonnell) interviews Anne (Louise Siverson), when her husband's supposed mistress is found stabbed to death in a park. Gina then goes to see her therapist, Glenda (Gail Watson), who confesses something quite startling to her shrink. Meanwhile the shrink goes to see her best friend Susan ( Nina Landis), and discovers that she, too, is holding back a terrible secret. In the final segment, Gina is back in a police interview room after there's another murder. Just who is guilty of what?

I won't say much more about the plot of "Four of a Kind," as its the type of movie that should reveal its secrets to the viewer as the film goes along, but I will say that its main strength is the superb performances from a talented ensemble cast. The screenplay by Helen Collins (Id be surprised if this wasn't originally written for the stage) intelligently examines and dissects these four interesting women, making this a fascinating character study. Each segment is broken up by a brief performance by the rock-jazz group Joe Camilleri and the Black Sorrows, which is less distracting than you might imagine (their music is catchy, for one thing). "Four of a Kind" reminds me of one of Woody Allen's better pictures with its incisive characterization and its intermingling of what may seem like separate story lines. Although some may be put off by the somewhat ambiguous if insinuating ending, this is a worthwhile and unusual movie made in Australia. (read more reviews on my blog Great Old Movies.)

This begins quite well and is absorbing for the first hour, but after that all the repetitious flashbacks and slow pacing pretty much ruins it. Field is marvelous, with fine back-up from Woodward, Davis and others. But the pic often plays like a parody, especially when one reads "Sybil Exposed," in which we learn that the young lady -- the real "sybil" -- faked the whole thing.

I applaud the fact that the show has some diversity in its cast, what with women, African-Americans, Latinos, and even a couple of reasonably positive lesbian characters, but for a show set in San Francisco it is completely ridiculous that we never, ever see a gay male character -- not a cop, not a prosecutor, not a defense lawyer, not a suspect, not a witness, nobody, ever, -- stereotypical or non-stereotypical -- throughout three seasons! Are you kidding me?

That being said I found the first season's connected storyline to be very entertaining, with knock-put performances by Tom Felton and James Cromwell. The last two seasons added many more characters, some of which we really didn't need, and many sub-plots, some of which were interesting, making it a more traditional cop show, for better or worse.

Taye Diggs and Kathleen Robertson are okay in the leads, not bad actors, even if they seem a bit like lightweights compared to, say, Mariska Hargitay of Law and Order SVU. Robertson's model-perfect bobbed nose can be a distraction. Rafael Sbarge, Jamie Lumer, and some other cast members make a positive impression. The scripts have their head-scratching moments, but the show is not bad. With only thirty-two episodes you can binge watch it on Hulu in a number of days.

Paging Alfred Hitchcock, who would never come up with an alleged thriller as dull and disappointing as this. The performance of Ross Martin is the only real interest, although Ford and Stefanie Powers are good, Remick less so. This starts out quite well, but it just doesn't hold up. Does not compare at all well to really great suspense films, but they were hardly Blake Edwards' specialty.

The reviews on this site so overpraise this movie that I wondered if they were posted as a joke. "Plot of Fear" holds the attention, has a good lead performance from Michele Placido, a good supporting turn from Eli Wallach (Tom Skeritt shows up for about two minutes), but the plot is warmed-over Argento and lacks that director's style and pacing (in his best films, that is). If you can actually figure out the ending good for you! This is not a film for gore geeks, as it's relatively bloodless, but it could have used a little more excitement and flair in its very few murder sequences. How one writer can claim that Argento's films are "bland" and then over-praise this picture as if Paolo Cavara was in his league is just ludicrous. This is only borderline giallo and not very good giallo in any case. Some good scenes but it just falls apart.

Possibly director Ulmer's worst movie. I simply can't understand the bizarre raves for this terrible picture. People go on about it as if it were made by Hitchcock! The plot is obvious, there is no suspense, it's fast=paced yet still manages to be tedious, Everyone knows what's going on practically from the first so there are no surprises. Inspired by Hamlet? Give me a break! As for the acting, Lydon is okay and Warren William is wasted.

Some people will find something worthwhile in the most forgettable movies, and they're welcome to their opinion, but "My Son the Hero" is much more of a sow's ear than a silk purse. Some of the actors are fine, the pace is fairly fast, and it isn't awfully boring, but it's a far cry from a good, funny movie. Anyone who sees "darkness" or depth in this silly and derivative picture is seeing only what they want to see.

Woody Allen tries aping Federico Fellini and comes up criminally short,as Allen is no Fellini. The film has no real plot, a bad script, only a few comic touches, and is ultimately tedious to boot. If you are obsessed with the personal details of Allen's life, you might enjoy this more than the average viewer. But anyone who sees this as a masterpiece needs to see a LOT more movies!

The 1949 version of this story may not have been a masterpiece, but it's certainly a better piece of film-making -- and much better acted -- than this disappointing, sloppy, and comparatively dull remake. Whether or not it's more or less faithful to the novel is besides the point -- this is a MOVIE and it should work as a movie. Penn borders on the grotesque, Law looks like he needs sleep, Clarkson will never win an Oscar for this as McCambridge did in the original because her role seems to have been left on the cutting room floor to make room for more Penn. Important scenes are just sloughed off in non-dramatic fashion so that it's almost like a parody at times. See the original!

This is basically a scene by scene copy of the previous year's French film "Pepe le Moko" starring Jean Gabin. Nevertheless, this version has the edge on the French film because of the actors -- Boyer is terrific as always, and even Lamarr makes her character more likable than in the original. The script changes are mostly minor. A nice musical score helps this version a lot as well.

Remade as "Casbah" with Tony Martin in the Boyer role!

An absolutely terrible, amateurish, silly take on the old Dr. Mabuse character with virtually no redeeming value. Okay, the blue screen look of the film is occasionally striking, but this is a mess when it comes to a solid script, strong characters, suspense, tension, or any coherent excitement. I felt sorry for the old "Dark Shadows" actors, of which only Kathryn Leigh Scott gives a memorable performance in a laughably under-written role.

I can only imagine that somebody got their relatives or people who worked on the film to write these rave reviews. The new Spielberg? Come on!

Okay, you take a fish-faced actress with a really awful voice and not that much acting ability, give her just one halfway decent song to sing, build a stupid plot around her that lacks not just a believable quality but any kind of charm or humor, and what have you got? Something that isn't even as entertaining as one of those mediocre Republic or Monogram musicals with Gale Storm or Phil Regan, both of whom sang better, and certainly looked better, than Jessie Matthews. There are about a zillion movie musicals better than this one. As for musicals by Rodgers and Hart, just about anything they did is a zillion times better than "Evergreen."

Phil Regan was handsome, had a great voice, a pleasing on-screen personality, and could act well enough for this kind of stuff, but, unfortunately, his films were all made for Monogram and Republic and not MGM. "Happy Go Lucky" has a somewhat different plot than usual -- is that singer, "Happy Jack," in a Shanghai nightclub Evelyn Venable's missing fiancé, Bill, or is he just a lookalike? -- but it still doesn't amount to much. Jed Prouty of the Jones Family series is on hand as Venable's father, and we've also got Jonathan Hale, who was Robert Walker's father in "Strangers on a Train," as a family friend. The highlight of the film is Regan singing "Right or Wrong."

Lupe Velez fans will enjoy this minor musical in which the gal plays two roles, a recent arrival to New York named Rita, and her lookalike cousin, Maria, who is a Broadway musical star calling herself Elaine. The cousin has hidden the fact that she's married and pregnant from the producer, so Rita takes over her role while Maria goes off to have the baby. Things get amusingly complicated when the husband shows up without knowing the switch, not to mention two other guys who are interested in either Rita or Maria. Lewis Wilson, the first actor to play Batman, is in the cast, as is Gerald Mohr. Co-star Michael Duane is easily out-acted and out-personality-ed by Velez, who sings not too badly, dances well, and seems to be having a lot of fun. If you enjoy the Mexican Spitfire films you may get a minor bang out of this.

This would be an outstanding episode were it not for the fact that it seems to be an uncredited adaptation of Ray Bradbury's 1948 short story "The Crowd" -- even the title is similar. The basic plot -- accident victim sees the same people over and over again at accident scenes -- is exactly the same with a few changes. Bradbury's name appears nowhere in the credits. An oversight -- or plagiarism? Other than that this is intriguing and creepy and star David Hedison gives one of his best performances. Rather a nice adaptation all told -- it's just odd that Bradbury wasn't given an acknowledgment, especially as the story is fairly well-known.