Reviews

Good-old bad-old gay days

Take it on its own terms or leave it for something more to your Woke standards.

The story is told pre-gay marriage mass activism. No thoughts or references to 'trans'. No super-wise or funny lesbian neighbor or friend. No drag. Maybe they did to work in a scene at drag bar for more humor than this movie actually achieved. Though this is not La Cage or The Bird Cage. Drag and or dared a leather bar moment for Simon, perhaps. I thing you can see on watching, where than could have its moments and consequences. Great way to show more insight or personalities of Wei-Tung and Simon.

This makes it a fine, but dated, still-relevant gay family story. It is be funny, moving, pondering, uplifting in various scenes. Such stories are still told or updated with in cinema tv etc. It is tinted or tainted by centering on traditional heterosexual family dynamics steering the main gay couple, Wei-Tung and Simon in midst of the crazy brou-ha-ha they had a big hand in bringing upon themselves.

It is made more watchable and universal as there us no 'movement' or obligatory anti-President you-know-who messages are a great relief. As mainstream as possible. The parents, in from Taiwan; a last chance to see son marry and give a grandchild, are shown more nuanced and respectful portrayals than the gay couple. May Chin as Wei-Wei becomes the most emotionally engaging and sympathetic of them all. Simon's parents, the white American guy's family is not part of the story.

A Fairytale of New York

This is also a New York story of the late 1980s and early 90s.

NY is a constant player. I think it was very important aspect of the story, but not embellished.

The most distinctive and rewarding NY locations was in the fine TWA Terminal. A That airline and IMHO the America that gave rise to it, and the NYC home of it Pan Am, etc. Is gone. It felt to me poignant look back.

The World Trade Center towers make a very brief out-of-focus background appearance. Of course they do. So common and taken for granted.

One personally meaningful stock scene used for only for an actual second or so, was from a spot oft-used in movie and TV shoots of a 'gritty downtown block'. The sho5 is of 30+ years ago; it is 2 blocks from where I live now. I would say it is actual, and nothing changed for any filming. No graffiti. Overall it offers a peek at a city that was a better place than now. In so many ways, in my own estimation as lifelong, non-affluent, non what I call 'enchanted life like the persons portrayed are, NY'er.

We have middle-class or somewhat affluent gay couple, which is most common in movies. They or one of them owns a townhouse, by appearances might be in the West Village. It is shown in tight views, so it might be back lot but the towhouse felt very NY. Other stocks scenes were downtown in Manhattan and some in Brooklyn seeming to be Williamsburg.

To-Go, Please

After all, I wanted the banquet and crucial but brief after party hotel room scene to be over as soon as possible. Somehow, the look at the crowd and big movements of near-social chaos took over. Some enjoyable glorious close up of food and 'telling' close-up of the main characters faces while eating are lacking, to me..

A must-see for me. 1 and half-times viewing is enough. Recent viewing; I did not see it in original release.

This was one I almost went to see in theater when it came out. But I waited and they just showed on on ABC. I had some doubt upon the start how this was an origins story for that Cruella de Vil. I thought the name was coincidental, and just a Disney self-ripoff to start some new story arc. It took well into the film to be convinced it was THAT Cruella.

That Disney English Fixation

I swear a sky or elevated view and pan, toward St. Paul's, near the end of the film was a very quick homage to a moment of London scene in Mary Poppin's opening or Main Title.

We are introduced to the character as young, smart, very misfit in attitude and appearance Estella. A girl who goes is sent to a country private school in the UK but is taunted badly from the start. .Her mom removes her and start a journey to London to a new life and (we presume very expensive private school - but never gets there). They have one mysterious stop and a castle-like estate, when a key and horrific events changes their lives. I don't know if any viewers of the film knew how the stage was being set for lives of young Estella / Cruella's and The Baroness intertwined lives, that is the point of center of the film. A few more characters who are their allies one way or another, are about to be introduced.

Too Dark For Young Children

Crimes of many types, pay off for the two protagonists. Their evil gives them their power. It also is a part of what make them quite stylish and fab. The film works very hard to show that over and over. It is carried off better and more appealing to a mass audience than Divine ever did back in the day; this movie is also more suavely gay than any John Water's film except for Hair Spray.

Lots Of 'Reading' and 'Snaps'

But it was not too gay for me. I think it reflects the Disney company (ESG and such) values mandated and narrative creative employees are carrying forth. Fortunes of some of their other films have not turned out so well. I understand others being turned or realizing Cruella is not a young child's film Note the moments of implied brutality are dark ill-humored beyond slapstick.

If It Had Been Made In The 'Old School Days

The whole thing could have been successful in the ends of a prior generation at Disney. I would have like to what might have been created from the same basic story elements, created at least as far back as 30 years ago might have been. They would have edited and moved it along better INHO, and been less indulgent.

Back when they would have commissioned and original music. No matter that I like the pop used in Cruella. The pop-rock music use was clever but in a way that is no better than what has been already overdone in TV commercials. In a negative way what they would have done way back when would have meant less over-the-top visuals and different production design and costumes.

Not Oz, Though There Is A Sort-of Toto

Particularly, the old-time crew would not have let the The Countess' dalmations be intense attack dogs, ready to kill on command.. At least though threatened, we did not see anyone torn apart by them. So, not a true horror movie LOL. They did perpetrate the death of one character early on. Who was on screen briefly and was the only one who was close to being good and pure.

The dalmation guard-attack dogs at the Baroness castle did accomplish the death of one character early on. Who was on screen briefly and was the only one who was close to being good and pure. Guess who?

The movie had too much k9 time. They were integral for much of the story. So the pack of brutal dalmations were taken away to the den of Cruella and her two long-term partners in crime and henchmen for one more key ingredient of the story. Their own cute little dogs and sometime partners in mayhem also wore thin.

The conclusion easy enough to understand and be satisfied with the fates of all. Except one. And so we have the rise of the ultra fab, twisted Cruella. And the silly way they made her full character name came about stick in the mind too.

Is as worthy of that title as much as the almost infamous picture directed by Frank Capra. "Miracle Club" doesn't quite fit well enough either. Keep on to the end; there is a small one. Some quick heartwarming homecomings after all, also at conclusion, too. These were close to being so obvious and in your face, but at this point the audience 'eats it up.'

It is a story about relations between and inner lives of a small group working class women friends and immediate family. We have reconciliations and redemption. Their personal inner journeys, collective journey, is facilitated during trip to Lourdes. That does relieve from any feeling of being boxed in and make this far beyond soap opera and social commentary. Any movie that does make me shred a tear of some joy and relief without being corny or such, is worthy.

They are about to gather for a funeral of one of the elderly friends. Movie opens with Maggie Smith's character at a memorial for her son, who drowned 40 years prior (1927). We also have the arrival a bit late, thus expected to be a no-show, was the (Laura Linney) as Chrissie, the dead woman's daughter, from the U. S. Integral to the story on more than one level. I loved the performance and story of the Dolly, younger Mom amongst the group, who has a young inarticulate son. Known and looked out for amongst all but a frustrating situation for her young working-class husband). Hoping against hope to get a ticket and to Lourdes for a cure. Dolly looks fab in here mod outfit. She (and her young son, of course) becomes an extremely sympathetic character in short order. And of course she is keeping a secret too, almost crippling here with guilt , that she may have caused this.

The trip to Lourdes is in the works, spoken about nearly right away in the story. It is a desired prize arranged by all thru their church, 2 passages for winner of a talent contest. Going on, well attended in town in lieu of going to the wake, as the dead woman was an organizer, along with Priest (and would have wanted it to go on)

The trip is of great importance to the Irish group of female friends at the heart of the story *probably would be the first time any had taken a significant trip, for health reasons, both revealed and one private (Kathy Bates character keeping a secret of suspected breast cancer) . One ticket from the deceased is added as donation from (Ms. Linney's character) to the group. She (daughter) makes up the 4th women in the group going, being persuaded by the Priest as it being probably here Mom's wish, and Lourdes being more than just a place for those looking to heal the body.

This is an adult's film, a women's picture quite worthy of a larger audience, because it's humanity transcends all. I think if it had been made in 1967 and in Ireland or UK, it would have been more cynical and dark. Issues of Church, marriage, abortion, women's health issues are not so much glossed over as balances with humanity, and having a movie of such being able to also entertain. Some real critics may go darker, (flashbacks and explicit scenes or such) and present a Progressive narrative. I am glad it did not.

Noteworthy the entire picture was made in Ireland on location and in studio. Nothing Lourdes actors were in was in Lourdes. There was less than 4 weeks of shooting and as it progressed the women grew to inhabit and bring their ensemble interactions to life.

It's not a road picture, there is little shown of interaction on the way, and none on the way back from France.

• seen at World Premier, Tribeca Film Festival, June 12. Director Thaddeus O'Sullivan and Laura Linney spoke to the audience after the film.

This is NOT Smoke Signals 2. LOL. This is a bit running gag or inside thing, I think based on reality of not having rights to title and intellectual content of real OF film.. just a few clips shown with. Cody Lighfoot, "I am Little Viktor" obsessive quest to cement some imagined greater stardom than he had in the real film "Smoke Signals". By getting a script for a sequel with the original cast. Many do appear in "Hey, Viktor". But also being on a bender and trying fund (swindle) anyone he knew to find the project,

Complex film devices are used, though there are no flashbacks or dream sequence (I though it was going to go there) Cast was in the active narrative, some in a (first) screening that backfired badly, and in audience on on screen in a scene of a finalized movie. That 'near triumphal. Or redeeming final movie in a move had purposely jarring continuity and some serious parts and a part that was crazily Monty Python-ish. These parts bypassed the supposed screening audience in the film, and played to the real audience in theater.

I did not know really any background to this movie, nor anything of the actors. I had to look up info. Just a little while ago to confirm "Smoke Signals" was a real movie. I saw this tonight Thurs. 8 June at Tribeca Film Festival. Introduced as a world premiere. Perhaps it was not. It does have some Canadian sensibilities, and I don't mean humor such as in Kids In The Hall (90s TV comedy) etc. Descended from Brit humor.

Cody, Hannah, Simon and a couple of others and some crew were on hand. Many fans and insiders there and I could not understand the shouting, inside jokes and few 4 letter words tossed around on their entry. Constant F words in the movie.

It is nearly raw, very over the top at times, slap you hard humor. Docu-style, some improv. The 4th wall is gone most of the time. Most of audience screamed with laughter. I was so stunned at a_hole , self-destructive character Cody played so well so familiarly that I did not quite get the laughs out. We do have a bit of him naked BTW. Cody as a character and seemingly as a man has nothing to hide emotionally or physically. Everyone really inhabited their characters very well. I did find it long and as I knew no background at all to any of it, though it could get serious dark deadly perhaps turning on a dime from any humor at all. That was a sources of some tension. Is it a fault of film created of 2 personal visions, and being a non-Hollywood production, or it's strength? I recommend to many of you.

After all, with Q&A at end, I more deeply appreciated what this was about. I wish I had recorded a quote they explained personal for this raw humor for healing in the Native Community, letting out some of the pain, by bringing some fictionalized characters and situations to life.

BE FRESH FOR CAMERA, NO MATTER AN APOCALYPSE

The world as we know it does end but stabilizes very quickly. There are survivors. They have shaved and had hair and makeup done upon first being allow getting to outside (and being less than 40 days and night, lucky people). As they are on setting forth to ....(not Mt. Ararat).

POST-APOCAYPSE NEOCOLONIALISM

Guess which continent's land mass mostly exists somehow. Is anyone home there? That is the last question the film poses and it is unanswered. I don't throw around 'racism' word almost ever, but as the answer might be "It's just jungle there..."

1-star, 2-star, just low stars. I would never watch it fully, as I just saw in APR 2023 on SyFy from the part where some man picks up kids with a limo to go to Yellowstone. I knew nothing of the story up to 'now', I did not see back when, in the theatre. This film is oft-repeated on cable. It might be amusing to tune in at one or two particular moments. Knowing the story etc. Makes it easier to concentrate on visuals. Which are an overload of detailed cartoonish action. Gets tired and unbelievable quickly.

WRONG 2012 SCENARIO

The point is 2012 was amongst the years then upcoming by various persons with some (perhaps) scientific or research credentials theorized that "Planet X" or sometimes called "Niboru" would reveal itself. It is supposed to be getting closer to a near collision course with earth. On a highly elliptical orbit. Out of sight and mind of current civilization. But we are warned by ancients. This is dismissed by academics and government and supposedly known and covered-up, still.

FLYING CIRCUS

I am glad to have read the goofs and trivia and other users' reviews. They noted enough to cement the low ratings. Movie is full fundamental mistakes regarding aircraft operations and their configuration. Engineering and design of the "arks" is wrong, makes for plot device that falls apart. Questionable geology, geography and civil engineering show, just to exploit and create the biggest 'bangs' possible.

Spoiler: Yes, you see a flying giraffe, elephant, Ridiculous fast helicoptering of them suspended outside, over the Himalayas. No problem. Arks. Get it?

WEF APPROVED?

I did not know about our tough but fair and necessary 'friends' in China. I did not see the reveal about the bogus science behind the apocalypse scenario and secret preparations thus underway.

I did not expect that were ships.

Before watching I expected this might be some kind of updated (George Pal's) "When World's Collide" 1951. But "2012" does not hold a candle to "When World's Collide" good ol' story-telling, humanity, and fine effects for the period.

PS. Was not engaged enough by the males acting for the most part. Give a pass to Woody. He was OK. But offed guikly.

....for your enchanting viewing pleasure. But no satisfaction for any characters in the story . Everyone is stifled to the end but then abruptly it had to come to a positive resolution after all, for the times and being this cast and audience aimed at.

No matter. This is one that is a must-view for almost every adult. It is 95 percent can't-take-eyes-off-it. Especially the early morning 5th Avenue opening scene of taxi drop-off going UP 5 Avenue to stop in front of Tiffany & Co. Made even more precious as this NY NY familiar, yet so changed. It is fine to see the few location shots.

A few other's criticisms on this site are on-point but it is too easy to down-rate this for what it isn't. It is a fairy tale in more ways than one. Too bad it could not have been more explicit and dark. And more camp. Capote was probably right, but if cast and written his way, the movie would not be the 'classic' it became.

Were the characters supposed to be even more bizarre and caricatures? Were there supposed to have been drugs? Maybe not, because of the times, only.

Also confounding:

Holly G.'s supposed past, really being Lula Mae and Ebsen as her brief husband, back in the country. This rings so false for Hepburn to be playing. For playing against Hebburn, I think that past husband should have been re-imagined to be someone from another background.

Paul V. Not being a gay character. If so what would the movie do about Ms. Emily?

Bother ''Fred". Absent, but central to story. Bizarre device who seems like a lost lover or so, to Holly.

Also anther significant but implausible tale of Ms. G. and Mr. Tomato up in Sing Sing.

So why Mr. Yunioshi? Perhaps more racist of an Asian was actually cast. Perhaps would have been better as a voiced, lesser character entirely off screen. Even a female.

Don't watch the last episode. 5-Stars? Excellent to a point. First episode 10, last is 0.

I was hooked in an instant at end of first episode's chase /accident sequence. As Sam Tyler comes to, and looks about, he sees the old WTC towers in a long view down Madison Street (Two Bridges, Manhattan) of "1970s". I started crying. They got me. It hit so hard; the opening's pacing, editing, setting was put together so well! The area is oft used for location shots for cop shows and such.

The show often emotionally affected me. Jason O'Mara and Gretchen Moi were both engaging and fine to watch. The mini dramas, good enough elements of NYC back then, and element of mystery and Tyler's investigation of his time slip puzzle made for good stories. I do not watch cop shows or doctor shows at all.

I must say the little bits of puzzling micro devices going about (in shots of Sam's body, if I remember correctly) were confounding. These were important to the story. At first wondered if it was for some sci-fi violent action.

But I really wanted it to be true to it's fantasy - sci-fi strong backbone, with no cheap TV silliness . If I could wish and make it so, I'd would have the micro bots edited out and scrap the last episode. I'd rather the guy stay in NY back then and have the that explained some way i can't quite propose. And certainly to not have the whole thing wrap up with awakening from stasis on getting to Mars. Nor with another round of time change stories into another life.

Being about some Europeans before the World Wars.

Some jumbled thoughts on this jumbled movie.

Enough with the Adagietto so much!

Trying too hard to be art and beauty.

Lots of cinematography hiccups . I did not like pans combined with jerky zooms. Nor the shots from higher and lower and behind things. No zooms. Maybe tracking shots with Gustav would be better

I would have opened the movie with first scene on beach where Gustav is sitting on the beach face close up and hears Tadzio name being called and we see the boy and family and so on, for a few moments. Then it should have gone to flashback to start of this whole thing on the Continent, to story chronological order. Maybe the flashbacks should have been in b+w. Less of them and combined too, would be better.

Or not, and keep to strict story chronological order.

I wanted to know what the incidental dialog of characters were and maybe even incidental characters or extras were. Have everyone casted speaking English, or what their European supposed country of origian was and dub it all or subtitle it.

Then the story. That is much harder for me to critique. Someone needed to slap the director. Tighten the whole thing up. I just don't see the motivation for the supposed family man to be tempted to go so gay so fast (nothing indicated in any flashback) for a pretty male youth. Either that story gets 'fleshed; out, or changed or solved by extraordinary casting.

I read this when I was much younger, perhaps early in High School. We also read Camus, The Plaque, in that term.

Since we have C-V around the world, perhaps it's getting close to time for a remake!

One can read on enough in reviews here to 'get it' the story. I think a good radio play of it, as they did them back then, would have sufficed. My imagination would have made it more New York-y than it appeared on film, for me. Many points off for that. Surely no budget for it.

Most of all, I was not moved. No emotion was brough forth by this picture. Not from a brief caroling choir scene. Humor did not resonate well amongst the characters, maybe it was intended most of the time to play as though they are talking to themselves.

A movie IMHO. (many anyway) that engages me strongly by, can make me giddy and or bring me to tears (or both if incredible) or close to that.

I felt neutral, unsympathetic, and upset at various characters.

The main emotion was I felt was tension. I expected tragedy to be wielded by the devilishly deceptive drunkard Mr. M. My stress was not 'rewarded' with Mr. M. burning the country house down (looked like it was set up to happen!) pouring kerosene into the furnace. They did not do things like this in these movies back then. And, he was neither punished nor redeemed.

Nor does the Pigeon family signify much in sum. Newly wealthy Miss Watson's future was left open; possible to romance, maybe marriage to Mr. M. and likely no happy ending.

Why wasn't this outed and made into the drama it seemed to be? Guess it would have needed a whole new cast, director and rewrite. Glad everyone seems have some more money in the end and a memories of a crazy Christmas time in Westchester somewhere.

They got to make this movie before there was hint of the end date of the space shuttle program. Thank goodness, I guess

There is a mix of good effects, technical mistakes, plot fantasy and plot 'plotz' It held my interest no matter what. Nice actors ensemble, mostly clicks together.

Some of the main points about the nature of the space mission were flagged. I expected the tech, betrayal and Soviet 'evil-ness' but I did not understand why one young NASA astronaut cracked and disobeyed orders, and went out and almost got everyone killed. All these space movies have to have one of those. I guess.

Also, a spoiler of the ending. Guy ('Tank") sacrificed himself, since he was going to die of cancer anyway, with a ride for the history books, to the moon. As though he had a soft landing and got to sit up and view the earth presume just before death. Aw, come on, even if the nonsense rocketing attached to Soviet 'Ikon' 'death star', in direct line to moon could be, surviving with enough air in space suit for a couple of day there ? Don't play 'Fly Me To The Moon" like that in any case!

Technical goofs in orbit are detailed in the IMDB write up. But we can let them go and just be entertained and thrilled. Also, early on, even I know the small plane 'zero-G' maneuver is not what was shown.

My main issue is the story. A note the web pages tells us NASA would cooperate with a NASA/ US 'bird' being nuclear missile platform. I agree with that stance. So, it was very easy to make it the Russians'. But the story has no involvement of Pentagon. CIA, or the White House in the space mission and presumed cover-up as they (surely) would know what's up there and this being top national security issue.

I digress somewhat in the aim of a more serious bent the story might have taken, though date story was written probably precludes it. In any case, NASA would not liked this:

For those who might be interested in the Apollo debunkers (and I am keeping an open mind) and like to read up on the many anomalies, there could have been another twist to movie's big issue of ' how did the NASA Skylab guidance system get into 'Ikon'"?

Skylab was only manned from May1973-Feb. 1974. The software In the movie was stolen by KGB from office of Gerson (what is his big NASA title supposed to be) back in the day. That Russian 'Ikon' weapons satellite in the movie had to be deployed roughly in the time period of actual U. S. Skylab development - deployment or the actual Apollo-Soyuz mission of 1975

I would not buy this movie story, as history and 'conspiracy theory' has much more potential for intrigue. There did really begin in the early 1970s a strange new marriage of NASA-Soviet cooperation, Showcased started with the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz 'space jam', and more currently to the ISS space station very direct basic cooperation.

My plot point would have been than NASA itself gave Soviet Union the technology. Could be something like that (read on...) . Further to the movie, the Soviets then betrayed U. S. by sending up this weapons platform (and that was going to be more of them, too.)

A particular author ( I am not reviewing a book here; one amongst many of the genre) in book newer than movie, maintains there was limited US-Soviet cooperation in coverup up manned mission foul ups for years. Eventually leading to tech transfer to Soviets as part of price to U. S. for them keeping quiet on Apollo

According to this book, and others similarly, there was years of US knowing of deaths and failures of Soviet manned missions, pre-Gagarin (seems that is the actual truth) . Also, years of Soviet knowledge of having Apollo only go to low earth orbit due to many technical reasons. Both sides kept each others secrets.

There was so-called stronger evidence, after Soviets actually recovered an' Apollo boiler-plate' BP-1227 capsule in the Bay of Biscay (off France) 5 months after the April 1970 launch of Apollo 13. Which was handed over to a U. S. Coast Guard mission several months later. The Soviet recovery and returning it to U. S. is real. The author parlaying it into recovery of an actual capsule seen used in presumed manned Apollo launch (and ditched into one of the Atlantic abort zones) is a stretch too far, IMHO. But if so, that is logically a primary reason for U. S. being wedded to stronger cooperation with Soviets in the early 1970s as I just mentioned.

The movie held my attention, is engaging and is well crafted, from the 'bookend' opening and closing scenes, to consistent characterizations and a clear story line. There were a few humorous lines almost breaking the 4th wall. I don't know movies well enough to make a case for other actors who could have been any better; we can imagine others who might have been more funny or absurd. Here, no one much stole the show. And it could have made a nice stage production (If this was never a stage production).

Ms. Durbin did very well presenting a devious __ so sweetly. Because it was with supposed to be with 99 pct good intentions of her character. But to relieve some of the sugar shock for the audience, she got to push Mr. Arlen W. Pidgeon) overboard from the cruise ship on her realizing some of the first round of deception early in the film. However, physical comedy was not otherwise used in the film.

Mr. Pidgeon was very presentable then as actor who could have played James Bond in another time, had to inhabit a character was nearly 'taken for a ride' by the younger Ms. Drake. Mr. Arlen started to show as a weak man (this got it a bit close, for me, to breaking the 'integrity' of the story.) but it built tension that had to be broken. Mr. Arlen finally got a moment to spirit the senior Ms.. Drake away from the gaze of the headstrong somewhat 'wack' (after all!) Ms. Pamela Drake to propose - Hmm, seemed after they hardly had time to get to know each other. Oh, well. The story and personal dilemmas were enabled to be resoled.

The device of having main players not getting to the point at critical moments was carried through. It did not become too tedious and i accepted it (so glad it had to be ended for the film to reach it's expected conclusion! ). This way may be older than this movie, and it sure got used lots for decades later in sitcoms.

I just watched from DVR to 2 am while it's snowing in NY. More watchable than I imagined, The rating is somewhat high, though well deserved.

Wonderful Relic.

It is so bad for so many reasons, yet consistent in 'vision' well enough to hold attention and amuse. A curiosity. I can't rate this one easily. A low star number would be wrong, and a 10 is disingenuous though understandable of the enthusiasts.

Criswell sets a remarkable tone at opening and finish, could not have been better. It seems familiar because I think such lines have been repeated. He probably said them first.

Scenes in the supposed mother ship are OK, a little flat. However, I am quite stunned by the strange and eye-catching performance of John Breckenridge, as Commander, on the Mother Ship. He may have brought much of his own persona to the performance. Why 'him' (why not?) I read on THIS site, he was a drag burlesque performer and live as much as a woman as he could It was literally a much campier version of Dr. Smith (Jonathan Harris in the Lost In Space TV series) a decade later than this film.

A loss that Lugosi was not there to really take part in the film . Would have been even better. Too bad no one in a real studio let some sci fi props be used. I think that would not have hurt things. Junk in so-called space ships were a bit ridiculous. Would cardboard and actual junk have been worse?

Notable and watchable.

This was sort of well reviewed when it was released. It is quite a burden to be original, dramatic, forward-looking, grand, important, in any space drama and have it be very good entertainment, let alone "art" (a la 2001). The makers of the movie were surely all too very conscious of the "important" space sci-fi films, which came before. Handicapped and burdened from that.

I was aware of "Interstellar", but since I do not go to many movies, or do pay-per-view, the showing on cable tonight 7-26-2017 is the first time I've seen any of it. I tuned it at the point Cooper was shown into the space lab. I knew nothing of the story at this point. What did grab me to view was knowing of some upcoming space mission and that things were not going well in people's lives and on earth. Could not tell what year this was supposed to be happening in. Or why about much of anything that mattered to the story. All I heard were the characters babbling on.

I tuned out late in the movie at the disastrous docking attempt. It was getting too bleak and cynical for me. I had to read a synopsis while viewing and decided to tune out at that particular point, and save seeing the beginning for another showing. Filling in plot made me less eager to go on. At least it did not include zombies. Tech that the US should not have had the ability to produce and launch, anymore in the world this movie conjured, was a problem in my mind. Did some billionaire fund this? Looking at these people, the should have gone all the way and everything crash and burn, with a coda of cold dark (or what, how is world supposed to be ending in "Interstellar"? earth with a few relics as the pyramids remains standing. And a half buried black monolith sticking out of the dirt. That's it!

Reviewing first part to clarify story, production design and acting.. Still, I would not buy a DVD of this on discount if I could find one. I am being harsh. It is deserved in my opinion.

One of the most distracting or unsettling aspect of "A Pocketful of Miracles" is the disjointed production design, sets, costumes,dialog, etc. A mishmash of several time periods, unfortunately.

The films opens set in the late 1920s "NYC" I think there are Ford Model A's in the street scene. During this scene and before the main action starts in next, we get a perky pop tune of the late 50s, too.

Bette Davis first shot, close up, tosses a line and and walks to sell apples and (some little remarks to passers-by), and 'greetings' to compatriot street people. The crowd looks dressed as though it is they are contemporary to time of filming in 1960 or 1961.

Note that through rest of movie there is an ambiance and acting of that time of late 1950s into the 60s U. S., even though rest of film is set in the 1930s. Not a trace of that period to be seen, except for hints on 'The Dude's' and 'Queenies' speakeasy nightclub scenes) - but I don't really care anything about her character and that whole 'mob' part of the story. It's the main huge plot device tied to Apple Annie and her daughter's story.

It must have been of big interest back in the late 50s to early 60s to have a romanticized, comedic view of the old gangsters to fill up a film - there were several of those back then but I am not into that. Apple Annie's story is very incomplete for a film. Fine for the Damon Runyon short source, but some mysteries remain which could have been resolved easily in a few props and lines. What made this woman go into the streets but able to have sent her daughter off to Spain, to schools and not a nunnery, I think, Unless I missed it,

No one mentions that romance of her daughter with a Spanish noble (she being away in Spain since the early 1920s perhaps) might have been fine as originally written, but to propose it in 1950s/ 60s when Franco was still in power, is bizarre in my 'eyes', They did not use the the remake opportunity to rewrite that bit to some Middle European royalty,..

We have first big to-do of Bette Davis' over the top broken down ol' lady Apple seller diva-ness in the film. We see a treasured photo of Apple Annie's beloved daughter as she writes one of her periodic tearful letters to that daughter. In here letters,she postures as an ill dowager or society lady. Ann Marget has glamorous long hair not of the late 20s to mid 30s at all. Apple Annie is in her apartment in large room (certainly not a tenement!).

To cement the illusion, return address is to The Plaza Hotel in NYC, not able to use that named in the film. Such letters are smuggled out the service entrance by a cooperative employee. While it all lasts. And so the story intensifies toward the big 'thing'/

"Apple Annie" - Bette Davis acted in this like the old days, out of all of the cast. She was in the center of it all, but out of sync. I think she should have screamed at the others with all that energy shown "get out of my movie!" Her somewhat acclaimed performance is largely wasted here. It is a bit overbearing and hard to take during the long watch. Too bad they didn't have Lillian Gish, I'm sure. They wanted Shirley Booth, actually for "Apple Annie". Nice lady I'm sure, but Shirley Booth was always insufferable for me to me,

A few winks added here and it would be very plain that of the cast were playing it for laughs..while others were there for drama. Perhaps I should have not been stunned to read after I watched and wrote this (before edit) that other famed actresses and actors turned down the major roles. Even Sinatra! Other issues along the way did not stop this project from being made. If Davis had different actors to play off it might have worked much better. Glenn Ford's one-dimensional "Dave the Dude" is worst of the lot.

We get emotional high (to relieve concerns for for "Apple Annie" losing face), the film is unable to take us there. We don't burst into joy to such as "Apple Annie" does, as the VIPs and pols burst in to the fancy reception for Louise, bride to be (Ann-Margret), and her husband to be, and the his father, The Count. No bell rings, no angel gets his (her) wings. It seems a Capra knock-off!

What is needed is to explain how the pols and power that be were "tuned", to continue the charade at center of film, in the next climactic scene is unsaid and is not revealed by the acting, not by by facial expressions nor verbal inflections. The acting, writing and staging was of a TV drama of the times It is quite unresolved. The movie is then unredeemed.

Afterwards there a brief, lame coda. Last but not least, enough with the Apples. It got to be a fetish of 'The Dude' and the filmmakers, by default.

Tarzan was more eloquent. It's not about book-learning' Where was his humanity? How did Sellers pull this character off with a straight- face? Well, an outtake in credits does do there! You get a lot of - quantity if not quality- information from years of steady television watching! Trivia and news bits and smart quips galore. Beer jingles to sing. Chance - no, not a bit of that.

Certainly an illiterate middle-aged adult who had never been anywhere or done much of anything, and catered to as a child somehow, who had escaped from ever going to school, a doctor or dentist either...could have up and left the house, all dressed-up in business attire and packed and headed alone into downtown D.C.? Even

look, a gardener who can't measure or count or read a package could do the job he was supposedly doing? The story loses plenty of points for this alone even before it gets very far.

I did not know of the original novella, but this needed to be another movie that this is not. 15+ years of a cynical, spoiled, Hollywood lead to yet another bash-America first, very well-crafted, but hollow story. One more thing in light of this role, Sellers should have lived to do Mr. Pupkin in "The King of Comedy" (instead of DeNiro). Can you imagine where he could have taken that role!

I don't think I can watch the whole thing on TCM this minute. or ever. Tune in and listen a bit an turn away is enough. Better to listen to my CD, and get the Cast album if I can, as they dropped many songs; I've read. I am just young enough to know the name Fanny Brice, but not Nicky Arnstein; and wondered do they mean Sophie Tucker! Sounds silly but was confusing. Brice was not movie star(?) let alone to ever be possible as a TV star, out of sight out of mind.

The lives of Fanny and Nicky and her family in this movie are too sanitized and fictionalized. The movie and earlier play was produced by Fanny Brice's son-in-law and was 'rigged' so to avoid what I read could have been possible lawsuits especially from Arnstein! So I do hove something against it. And there won't be a musical remake of this caliber that can be closer to the real background story.

I thought they stopped making up all kinds of fictionalized characters and scenarios to sell the A- musicals of the 50s with THEN old-fashioned music standards and the THEN more "mature" stars. (Tea for Two", "Band Wagon" etc.)

I have no idea what Fanny Brice sounded like. Aren't there any recordings? None of the characters ring true in my imagination - songs forced style NY Jewish-ish, and sometimes the lines and sometimes not that way, too. You need to be a Streisand or a movie musical lover to take this in and be able to swoon.