Reviews

I've heard about this film for many years and finally got to see it last night. The idea is really great; that an unknown singer storyteller could become a big star and use influence to his favor. However, the way it was presented left a lot out. Characters comes and go with no more than a passing reference. One man seems to suffer a heart attack because of the pressure put on him for a manufacturer.

I believe the problem must have been the script which looked like it was cut down for budget purposes. The story jumps from one idea to another and not enough time is given to develop anything.

Andy Griffith is totally over the top with shouting and screaming. Patricia Neal always seems to have a pained look on her. Mattjau is the voice of cynicism with a pipe in mouth. (Same thing he did in Fail Safe).

The film is clearly the precursor to "Network" but doesn't seem to want to make any point.

I think the material just got away from Kazan and was lost in the editing.

Finally got to see this. I just finished reading the book for the second time. First off, do you think a 12 year old could have sex with an adult man? Wouldn't it cause her some internal injuries? The book is a romp of words and should be read slowly and possibly with a guide because of all the puns and literary refences.

In this movie, I could see great care was taken with the period clothing and locations. As someone who used to be in the hardware line, it was amazing how they got even the plumbing correct. The comics she was reading was pure 1948 and the music was popular back then. I just don't know that people could afford to put braces on kids teeth or that it was so available. Did anyone notice that Langella was trying to sound like James Mason in some scenes? It was a valiant attempt at filming an impossible book.

I've heard about this film since forever and only got to see it last night on TCM. It's pretty obviously taken from a play with all the action probably done off stage.

I'd like to know how much different the 1956 film was from the play. The notes said that due to the Code, they had to tone down the homosexual and adultery themes from the play. But both were so blatant they would be hard to miss.

The Debrorah Kerr character seemed to be the only only one who knew what was best for everyone and could solve everyone's problems, including, apparently her own. In a film about masculinity it was strange to see a woman being so in charge.

Finally, this must be some tough prep school. They have athletic clubs for every sport but you never see a single student in any class.

The tacked on ending was pretty morbid. It he did write a book about his experience everyone would know who the characters were and in real life it would have affected them all. Maybe it did.

I just found it very sad.

This was an attempt to make a screwball comedy but it just didn't work.

1. Stanwyk wanted to get away from the image he had just made in Double Indemnity as a conniving adulterous woman. In this film she is even worse by using a man for his home, his neighbors and pretending to be someone she isn't.

2. The premise is totally silly. But the endless meals that the author is supposedly famous for might have been a problem with war time food rationing.

3. Like many plays, people enter and leave rooms, with doors shutting behind them and hiding others.

4. It would have been nice if one person were a little charming or likeable but that doesn't seem to be the design.

The first time I saw this film years ago it seemed to be a little strange. Now that I can see it with a clear eye it is really a problem.

There is a great lack of logic to most of it. The opening shot is somewhere but we aren't told where. Charlie manages to outwit the men looking for him but who don't have a clue as to why they are even looking for him.

The movie moves to Santa Rosa shown as an idyllic small town. The fact that the film was shot during the war doesn't seem to enter into it. There are signs in the band to buy war bonds, and when Charlie takes Charlie to the bar a number of service men enter. Even so, the family is doing pretty well. The have big meals and drive everywhere despite the war time rationing. For a teller in a bank, the old man manages to own a home, take care of a wife and 3 kids and welcome a guest who might stay indefinitely.

Teresa Wright is just wonderful and she always is. Cotton is classic case of bad acting and bad casting. The two smaller children are just in the way and most of their chatter can't be heard. In fact, during many of the meals it seemed to be important to have characters talking over each other.

This is getting too long.

What public library is open until 9 PM on a weeknight. How could Charlotte know that a single article, in a local paper, without mentioning his name was about her dear uncle.? The ruse of having the "detectives" follow a man who they've never seen, don't know his name and have no description of across the country is pretty lame.

Finally, comes the end. Charlie is leaving town. His niece thinks she knows something about him but promises she won't tell. Charlie seems to have hooked up with a new widow victim. Now, why does he suddenly need to off his niece? And the sight of a 5'3 slight teenage girl tripping up a 6'3 adult man is pretty silly. And the whole town is crying over someone who had been there just a few weeks.

It was a great idea but it was concocted in a silly way. And don't forget the shots of people in Victorian garb dancing to waltz every now and then.

No Hard Feelings came as a surprise sex comedy that moves along pretty quickly. Jennifer Lawrence is immediately likable as the girl in trouble with the tow truck operator and the appearance at the front door of her overnight guest. Her wise cracks and fast answers are interspersed with her pleas for reconciliation that don't work. After that the plot just runs to a logical conclusion.

Just a few things to point out: 1. Maddie is supposedly extremely desperate for money but has a sizable wardrobe that she always looks great in.

2. Although Percy's parents are described as helicopter parents, they have no problem letting him go off to Princeton on his own, with his own luggage. (I forgot to mention the always miscast Matthew Broderick as Percy's father who looks like a over inflated football) 3. Maddie seems to have solved her problem with her home by arranging to sell it to her married friends. However, she has already been told by Jody that he had arranged to raise the property taxes higher than before. How one individual can manage that feat is not explained.

Good lines, good story and Jennifer Lawrence must be the most desirable person any young man could fantasize about.

Took me all this time to see this. It just doesnt work. Although it's supposed to be about the music business and the travails of a certain band, we aren't given hint of their style of music, what their hit songs were or an insight into any of the band members. The few shots of them on stage look like they are playing in high school venues. The kid reporter doesn't seem to have a clue about anything. There's a scene when he's talking to Kate Hudon and they appear to be reading from different scripts. They talk past each other which doesnt matter because we have no idea what their relationship is Terrible acting all around except for the late Hoffman who is the all wise and knowing mentor whose insights are extraneous to the plot, assuming there was one.

"I did some checking and all his notes are lies" "The lead guitarist called and said it's all true." How's that for a twist?

Better see That Thing You Do".

This film actually got worse as you watched it. Bad enough the child actors overacted, bad enough that Scarlett Johansson wore outfits that only movie stars in the 40s Hollywood wore, (and she can't act), bad enough that the imaginary Hitler could have been Bozo the Clown. People living Germany during the war would be glued to their radios, seeing propaganda in movies, and wondering how long their food coupons would last. Also, there seemed to be no point. The mother and son relationship looked as if they had both met each other for the first time about an hour before the story began.

The only reason I gave it a 3 is the lovely scenery of the imaginary town it took place. Some of it looked almost real.

This film shows you what has happened to "comedy movies" since someone let Judd Apatow write and produce movies.

This film doesn't work on any level. It's not a rom-com since there is no romance and it isn't funny. The ONLY time I almost smiled was when Kristen Bell is telling off the untalented Russell Brand in his baloney accent. This is also a film with some very beautiful women but instead of them, we are presented with male nudity (and it ain't good).

I took me 4 viewings to get through it, but don't worry no matter where you tune in the film is just a collection of unrelated scenes and bad dialogue.

Save yourself.

You really wonder what happened to the Coen's idea of a movie. This is a combination of bad acting, over acting and non-acting. The "big" in the title doesn't seem to refer to anything. It's apparently tipping off the audience that it's an homage or a satire on The Big Sleep: the two daughters, the father in a wheelchair, the blackmail. This film steals so many themes from so many movies I lost count. It doesn't work as a mystery, a comedy, or a satire and once you get through the first 40 minutes you really wonder what you watched. Symbolism is a good one. The three heroes could represent Jesus, the father and Holy Ghost only one of them is ultra violent and one of them dies of a heart attack. It really appears as if no matter how many rewrites they couldn't pull it together. And not enough of Tara Reid.

I usually have no patience for musicals but it only took me 4 tries to get through this mess.

Most of the reviews concern the difference between the Broadway musical and this film. It really begs the question of what material is unsuitable for a musical treatment. The original film was a great black comedy that was very offbeat. Transferring it to a Broadway musical rolls down the satirical edge and just makes it a feel good child's story.

Most of the songs are forgettable aside the fact that they all sound the same. (put the CC on to see how lame the lyrics are). The two main male leads look, sound and acted so similar I couldn't tell which was which. And Michelle is terrible miscast. There must have been some thought of putting Travolta in but his accent changed very often.' Finally, I don't know much about dancing but usually in a dance movie there is a shot of the dancer's feet, a full body shot and lively music. Here we have none of that.

Like many Allen movies, this one lacks an overall plot or characters who have personality. And it's not especially clever or funny. If you can imagine all the characters being about 15 and in high school it might make some sense but adults don't act like this.

It's scene after scene that could have been put in any order and the film could have ended at any time. (Kind of like it did) Diane Keaton must have said, "I'm a very beautiful woman and I could have any man" about 7 times.

Everyone is either writing a book or reviewing a book and yet none of them seem to have a problem with money although living in New York City.

My big complaint is Hemingway who gets too many closeups. She has some sort of nasal problem and it would have helped if there were subtitles each time she spoke. She could also use some help in the acting department too.....but that was clearly the director's fault.

For those of you who think Allen is a film genius, you'd have to answer why none of his films are taught in film class.

This is a very over the top action flick that seems to parody every heist and getaway movie you've ever seen. The chases are so wild it's amazing how the main character is able to find so many cars with the keys already in them. And it's the old kill the bad guy over and over and he comes back for more.

The characters are interesting and the girl who plays his girl friend does a great impression of Jennifer Jason Leigh from 30 years ago.

Kevin Spacey gives his usual menacing performance as Doc. But even though he claims he doesn't use the same folks for each job, the 3 from the first job seem to show up at the end.

Good action and and a tad too long.

I'm used to historical dramas that take liberties with the facts. Here we have women using the words "c_nt" and "f-ck" more often that most war movies.

But the costumes and settings were grand. The castle looks like it's occupied by about 5 people. Where were her ladies in waiting? Or the King for that matter.

The fish eye lens was just unusual.

I suppose my favorite scene is where Emma Stone is trying to get into good graces with the Queen and is pushing Her Majesty around in a wheelchair. She says to her "Oh, you are so beautiful. If I were a man I would ravish you" But it was rather far fetched. You don't often see a lesbian version of All About Eve in 17th C, England.

This is a very strange movie. It's also shot in a very strange way. Many important scenes are shot in long distance through doorways. The opulence of the wealthy family is so over the top it might have been part of the appeal when it was made.

Clift just sounds like his mumbling. Liz's voice and demeanor make her sound like she's 12. And Winters goes from dour girl to determined girl in one scene. And the music is very overwhelming and inappropriate in many places.

The book is no longer assigned in school although it was published the same year as Gatsby. Although it's 800 pages or so, when I read it the style and story drew me in and I could barely put it down. Recommend it to anyone who was taken by the movie.

Good acting and a thoughtful story. Shot in a strange way with many intercuts, chalkboard drawings that come to life, and not everything is answered.

Sami Gayle plays a very vulnerable teen prostitute. I remember her from BlueBloods.

Lot of other actors play different roles in the troubled school. Brodey stands out as a substitute teacher who is trying to hold on.

All the others are convincing and draw you in.

But it's pretty dark and brooding but well worth watching.

As opposed to most reviews, I thought this was one of the worst examples of a bad rom com I've ever seen. What comes to mind; 1. Two wooden actors trying to act friendly.

2. A man comes across a sleeping woman in the middle of the night in Rome and isn't startled that she speaks English with some weird accent.

3. All the Italians are seen as bafoons.

4. The Princess is given a shot to get her to sleep but she manages to get dressed climb out of a castle, go showboating around Rome and finally acts silly.

5. It's not that Peck look mature; anyone would look old next to a girl who looks and acts like she's an entitled 14 year old.

6. It's supposed to be cute that a young girl basically steals a Vespa, causes traffic problems and then gets away with it. At the dance she manages to bang a guy on the head with a guitar and it's sooooo cute.

7. The Princess doesn't want to meet the common folk as everyone seems to think. "I want to do all the things I always wanted to do".

8. It always amazed me that Hepburn became as big a star as she did. They could have given her elocution lessons or taught her to speak slightly faster. Until she gets a "Thank you" out you could hold your breath.

9. I have a lot more, but it's obviously a rip off of IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT only not funny and with less interesting characters. It's so similar that the reporter gives up a windfall money wise (the price of the interview vs. The reward for the daughter).

....and I felt bad for Eddie Elbert whose sole role in the movie is to get drinks spilled on him and trip each time Peck touched him. He did look good with a beard and had a great name.

As something of a film lover, I knew it was time I finally got to see this highly lauded film. Well, I'm no fan of westerns but this one was just flat. It doesn't matter that Cooper barely registers any emotion at all, or that Grace Kelly never could act, but the whole story is so absurd I don't know why it gets such accolades. I will give the cinematography a 100%; it looks great. A man on the verge of leaving his job gets married to leave town. How did a Quaker get out to this rural outpost.? Mail order bride? The editing needed an expert. The fight between Cooper and his deputy looked like they were dancing. When Cooper tries to get out of the barn with the horses it's not clear where anyone is. And of course the gun fight at the end just means these hired killers (whom everyone seems to know and enjoy) can't hit the side of anything. Too many shots of Cooper walking down the main street of an empty town with the endless repeating of the theme song. Frank Miller is seen as some sort of monster but we get no background on him or any of his cohorts. I suppose this could go down as a medieval morality play but it just didn't work for me. A better version was the sci-fi movie Outland.

This film did everything it could to make you think it was a film noir but it just borrowed all the ideas without a neat or interesting ending. (I should add that there are times when Glen Ford looked a lot like Paul Muni; anyone agree?) The opening shot of the truck out of control and Ford behind the wheel were just great. Then he gets out after crashing wearing a well ironed wrinkle free suit and tie. Like most of his performances Ford is just there. Janis Carter was supposed to be a noir female but she just looks glamorous in every shot. I mean, most single women have a bottle of poison sitting in their kitchen. She does look beautiful in every shot but there is no emotion and no heat between her and Ford.

Just couldn't get over the similarities to Postman Rings Twice, Double Indemnity and the cheapness of the production. But Uncle Joe from Petticoat Junction was a welcome sight. Great voice.

This film started out very well but veered into over dramatics in the courtroom scenes. Wells is his usual over the top as a hypnotist and fake who controls people with just a glance. However pay attention to the design of the shots which are clearly Wells. Also, the details of the rooms and facades are very spectacular. Maybe they were real places. Wells had to duck many times while crossing rooms and they seem to have been built for smaller people or to give the illusion that he is taller than he is.