Change Your Image
rochesternypizzaguy
Reviews
I Care a Lot (2020)
I might run out of synonyms for awful and stupid
This was bad from the start and got worse. Dumb, unbelievable premise that somehow managed to become even dumber and less believable.
Some movies are so bad they're almost good, or at least entertaining in an unintentionally-funny kind of way. This isn't one of them. Find something better to do with your time. Almost anything short of sticking toothpicks under your fingernails should qualify.
A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving (1973)
Are we talking about the same show?
I can't believe how many rave reviews there are of this special.
For starters, it doesn't even begin to approach the level of the Christmas and Halloween shows, although that's admittedly a high bar.
But aside from that, to me, this is simply an example of the decline of Peanuts that started in the early 1970s. Too much Snoopy, too much Woodstock (the creation of whom was one of Schulz's worst decisions, IMO), too much Peppermint Patty and Marcie. I'm sure Schulz was trying to come up with new ideas and story lines with those characters, but to me it was more a symptom of his growing creative exhaustion. And in this case, possibly his abdication of creative control over the TV specials, which were mostly cobbled together by other people. Even the music's not as good as in the 1960s shows. This is worth a one-time look as a period piece, but that's about it.
Comme un chef (2012)
I saw the ending coming, but I loved it just the same
About halfway through the movie, I could see how it was going to end. But that didn't spoil it, thanks to the well-written situational comedy and good performances. It also occurred to me that as good as this was, it could not effectively be remade in the U.S. The stereotypical French obsession with food lies at the heart of this film, but it translated well. Make a batch of crepes, or get a couple of baguettes and a bottle of vin rouge, and enjoy.
Postia pappi Jaakobille (2009)
A beautiful movie that falls just short of perfection
I'm assuming that the reader's idea of a great movie does not necessarily include explosions, gunfire or sex. Those can be part of a good movie, but you won't find them here. This is literally a quiet movie that has to be judged on its own terms.
In that context, this is a terrific movie. The story is simple but well told and well acted. It's moving without being maudlin or syrupy. Straightforward yet emotionally involving. It's about forgiveness, redemption, and purpose in life, as worked out by a most odd couple, an aged blind priest and an ex-con who did time for murder.
So within its limited parameters, I found it a beautiful film. My only complaint relates to the ending, which was rather contrived. I don't want to add a spoiler, but I thought the ending could've been drawn out a bit longer and been more convincing and effective. Watch it - and do watch it, if it sounds even remotely appealing - and I think you'll see what I mean.
Columbo: Rest in Peace, Mrs. Columbo (1990)
Good episode marred by a ridiculous ending
Fun to watch, with good acting all around and Falk at his bumbling, annoying-yet-endearing best. But the ending was more than I could swallow (no pun intended, if you've seen the episode). Columbo stages a fake burial, supposedly with the assistance of some fellow officers, but apparently also with the connivance of a priest (unless it was a cop in disguise) and a local cemetery, replete with a coffin and flowers. Even assuming he could've pulled that off, he would have no way of knowing if the suspect would take the bait and show up. It could've all been for naught. The ending could've been much simpler, more plausible, and IMO more effective, for that very reason. It seems like another later episode in which the writers tried too hard to come up with something different.
Repulsion (1965)
One of the worst movies I've ever seen
I'll generously give this a 2 out of 10. The blurb calls it a horror movie with unbearable suspense. Substitute "horrible" and "unwatchable" and you'll be closer to the truth. It's an hour and 45 minutes of a semi-catatonic girl staring blankly, and saying almost nothing, with two moments of violence. Inexplicably, one good-looking guy seems to be in love with this nut job. He pursues her, much to his regret, even though she mostly walks around like a zombie. We have no idea why she acts this way or how she got this way. No reason to have any interest in her. For most of the movie, the most interesting thing happening is a clock ticking. I'm sure this was considered avant garde, or brilliant, or whatever, in the 1960s, but I found it just plain awful. I gave it a second star for some effective cinematography.
His Kind of Woman (1951)
Odd movie
Good performances, yes, but the plot was implausible - gangster wants to lure a guy to Mexico so he can do some sort of plastic surgery to sneak into the U.S. using the other guy's passport. Huh? And the movie turns into a mashup between film noir and crime farce, with Robert Mitchum holding up his noir end while Vincent Price hams it up while reciting Shakespeare. Very strange movie that could've been a lot better.
Lonesome Dove (1989)
Like a parody of a western
After reading all these glowing reviews, I rented this. I watched the first hour before I gave up. So I admit, I didn't watch the whole thing, but only because I couldn't take any more. When I stopped it and took the disk out I said to my wife that it seemed like a parody of a western movie. Why? A bunch of things. Some nitpicky, I'll concede. The accents. Like everybody in the Old West spoke like a southern redneck. I wished the DVD had subtitles, because the speech was so exaggeratedly southern. I also started to wonder how these guys earned a living. They mostly seemed to sit around a broken-down ranch house and drink whiskey. Then I found out. Apparently every few nights they ride into Mexico and steal horses. When they do, the light of a thin crescent moon lights them up like they're in a baseball stadium during a night game. As the protagonists are stealing said horses, the nearby Mexicans fire off their pistols into the air, for no apparent reason. Just to express their anger, I guess. Or because, as Mexicans, they're too stupid to aim at the rustlers. And although this appears to be a regular occurrence, nobody on the Mexican side of the border appears to be on the lookout for these guys. What else? Oh, there's the scene where one of the characters hears the bedsprings squeaking from a second-story room, with the window closed, while he's standing outside, making him realize that the prostitute he was sweet on actually takes any paying customer, and wasn't just waiting for him to come back. And did you know that cowboys said "poop" instead of s***? Apparently they did. The little plot development I saw involved a sheriff in Arkansas traveling to Texas to track down his brother's killer. He does so reluctantly because the victim's widow (who is his sister-in-law) bullies him into it. Now I'm not saying that this couldn't have happened, but I think it far more likely that the sheriff would've sent a message, by telegram, post rider, or however they did it, to Texas authorities to watch for this guy. Sure, there were posses, if people thought the guy they were after was nearby, but I doubt that a sheriff would leave his town for who knows how long, to go hundreds of miles to another state to track down one man. Yes, the victim was his brother, but the movie makes clear that his heart wasn't in it; he just wanted to pacify his bossy sister-in-law. And so I gave up. I like Westerns, I really do. But this was just plain bad. Maybe it gets better, but I didn't want to stick around long enough to find out.
Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
Good, but not one of Hitchcock's best
This movie held my interest, but by the end I saw so many plot holes and implausibilities that it diminished my enjoyment of it. I won't include any spoilers, although some of this won't make complete sense unless you've seen the movie. Joseph Cotten's character, "Uncle Charlie," goes to spend time with his sister's family, apparently to get away from a couple of guys who are trying to hunt him down (why, is not immediately apparent). The drama begins when Charlie tries to get rid of a newspaper page containing a story about him. Problem is, only he knew it was about him. Nobody else would have connected it with him, and he must have known that. Two central characters then concoct an elaborate scheme, involving posing as reporters, to get a photograph of his face, when they could have just set up across the street with a telephoto lens (which I'm pretty sure they had circa 1940). For that matter, they could've simply walked up to him as soon as he came out the front door. There was no reason for the magazine scheme, except as a plot device, that leads to one of the main characters implausibly falling head over heels in love, with further complications ensuing. Eventually we learn that the plot involves some murders. At the end, everybody seems happy to leave things as they are, because the murderer is dead, but it would not have been that simple. There would have been issues to resolve about what was stolen from the victims. No honest police officer would just walk away and leave things as they stood, knowing about those outstanding issues. Well directed, with some nice camera work, and generally well acted. The kids are a little stiff, unsurprisingly, though Henry Travers is excellent in his supporting role as Joseph Newton. But the plot lets this movie down.
No Man of Her Own (1950)
Entertaining, but what a contrived plot!
Barbara Stanwyck delivers a good performance, rather melodramatic, though appropriately so, given the script. But the plot was heavily contrived - through a series of unlikely events, her character is virtually handed another woman's identity. So many things had to click into place, throughout the movie, that it was hard to take it seriously. Fun enough to watch, but the plot was so implausible that I found it not very compelling. It was interesting to watch, as a kind of proto-film noir. No hardboiled detectives here, or gritty street scenes, but blackmail and murder. This last line is just to get to the minimum 10 lines of text.
Sudden Fear (1952)
Fun to watch, but not an all-time classic by any means
Joan Crawford delivers a typically strong performance as a wife who discovers that her husband plans to murder her, and it's fun to see Jack Palance in an early role (interestingly, playing a stage actor who was rejected for a part as a romantic lead). Film noir fans will appreciate the cinematography, especially in the final scenes, which of course take place in darkened rooms and on darkened streets and alleys. But the plot has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese. Most obviously, when Joan Crawford's character finds proof of her husband's homicidal intentions, she doesn't go to the police, as any sane person would do, but instead comes up with a convoluted plan of her own, which of course goes awry. Add to that the movie convention that a man can simply sweep a woman off her feet with a little sweet talking, and be married to her in practically no time at all, plus the stretch that Jack Palance's character is so angry about being rejected for a Broadway role that he decides to marry and then kill the playwright, that we're talking about some serious suspension of disbelief here. If you can overlook those flaws, it's a fun couple of hours.
Anatomy of a Murder (1959)
Trial scenes ruin the movie
The charge is murder. The defense is that the defendant was legally insane, because his wife had been raped by the victim. The trial testimony focuses almost exclusively on whether she had or had not been raped (the implicit alternative being that she'd had consensual sex with the victim). But all that mattered was whether the defendant believed she's been raped, not with whether she really had been or not. Furthermore, one would expect the focus of the trial to be on the expert psychiatric testimony. That was over and done with in a couple of cursory scenes. It was as if the victim was on trial for rape. Meanwhile, the two attorneys are yelling at each other and getting in the witnesses' faces, while the judge sits there like a potted plant and occasionally warns them that they'd better behave (which he never follows through on). Awful.
The Goddess (1958)
Good performance wasted on a lame story
Kim Stanley gives an appropriately over-the-top performance, but the story goes nowhere. The protagonist is nutso crazy from beginning to end. I kept waiting for something to happen, to take the story in a different direction, but it didn't. The movie seemed to be meant to make some point about the corrosive effects of stardom, but instead it just seemed like a slice of life of some nutjob who happened to be a movie star. I also never developed any sympathy for the lead character. It wasn't like, "Geez, I can see how she started out as a basically good person but turned out this way." Instead, I was more like, "Wow, I can see why everybody she comes into contact with wants to stay the hell away from her."
Columbo: Swan Song (1974)
Fun to watch, but unbelievable
The plot follows the usual Columbo storyline, of Columbo almost immediately zeroing in on what happened and whodunnit, then drawing the noose tighter and tighter on the killer. And it's fun watching the interaction between Peter Falk and Johnny Cash. But it's one of those episodes you don't want to think about too much, because there are so many implausibilities. First, who would conceive of this method of murdering somebody is beyond me. It may set a record for the dumbest, most unnecessarily complicated murder scheme ever. Then we have the ending, where the murderer finds the incriminating evidence in a forest, in a hollow log, in the dead of night, in what should be pitch darkness. Right. Like that's going to happen. But it's still enjoyable watching the interaction between Falk and Cash, and it's one of those episodes where Columbo seems to have some sympathy for the killer. It's almost with regret that he has to arrest him. So good acting, but sloppily written.