djohn2581-1's Reviews

Caligula (1979)

2/10

30 November 2005

There's more good drama behind the scenes of CALIGULA than there is on screen. Bob Guccione should have stayed in the background as Executive Producer and let the professional filmmakers and editors do their jobs. He couldn't do that and the end result is a confusing hodge-podge of drama, horror, attempted humor, and well-shot but totally unnecessary pornography.

The real story of Caligula is fascinating. He was an inept leader who set new standards of depravity and madness that shocked even the bloodthirsty and jaded Romans. He was probably insane and yet he ruled a mighty empire, if only for a few years. If you want more than a picture of his depravity and mental instability you will have to look elsewhere. May I suggest the very excellent "I, Claudius" as a good place to start?

If you want history or good drama, look elsewhere. If you want good porn, you won't find it here, either. CALIGULA really has no reason for existence other than as a vanity piece for Bob Guccione. As a film, it's not even as good as junk like "Dude, Where's My Car?".

Were it not for the presence of some notable actors, all of whom have disavowed CALIGULA, this film would have scored a 1, and that would have been just a pity point.

15 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Mullets (2003–2004)

Redifines "stinker"

30 November 2005

Remember when "My Mother the Car" was considered the worst TV show of all time? Well, welcome to the cable age when there are myriad shows that make that old Jerry Van Dyke stinker seem positively Shakespearian by comparison.

MULLETS is inept. MULLETS is only funny when it isn't supposed to be. It's stupid. It sucks. It sucks. It sucks. Even for an "indie" network (as in WB, Fox, or UPN), which have generally low quality programing, this is a low point.

MULLETS is way beyond "bottom-of-the-barrel" programming. You'll find it somewhere in the slime beneath that barrel - there with the creepy crawlies and other loathsome things.

And, no doubt, the cretins behind MULLETS will soon have another series on the air. Yet another reason to turn off the TV and pick up a good book.

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

6/10

The best of the recent Star Wars films but.......

18 October 2005

Not nearly as good as the first three released films, "Star Wars", "The Empire Strikes Back", and "Return of the Jedi." Episodes I thru III suffer from terrible dialog and wooden acting. While the older movies aren't exactly top-notch scripting, they are at least exciting and move at a quick pace, unlike the newer films which come to a complete halt whenever most of the characters speak. C3PO and Yoda have the best lines and are the most interesting characters here.

The plot and story are fine. What these films needed was a script rewrite - dialog and character interaction need help - and a better director. Lucas should stick to the ideas and being executive producer while letting someone like Irwin Kirshner direct. As for scripting - with so many GOOD screenwriters out of work did Lucas think he could still do it all himself? He seems to have outgrown his once famed ability to write a good, terse script. He does seem enamored with the idea that bigger is better. Story and character development has become buried in a sea of grandiosity and CGI.

All that said, I still enjoyed this movie. It is the best, by a good sized amount, of the recent releases. And, if one can forgive the wooden acting, at least by the leads, and the mediocre direction, this is a good film. It's far from terrible and it is very entertaining.

My problem with all three films is that they could have been so much better. The older films are a lot better and they set a standard which none of the newer films come close to, although "Sith" comes closest.

And to think that "Star Wars" total production cost was less than the marketing budget for "Sith."

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

7/10

One of the Top 250! I don't think so..........

18 October 2005

I thoroughly enjoyed this very clever movie. It's a fun ride and I really did appreciate Depp's unusual character.

That said, this is no masterpiece. It is, rather, a very enjoyable and expertly done piece of fluff and a rather long advert for Disneyland. It's basically a lovingly rendered rehash of all the well-known clichés of 80 years of swashbuckler films with a bit of "Sinbad the Sailor" thrown in. This is like Ray Harryhausen (all hail!) would have done had he CGI tools at his disposal.

Pirates of the Caribbean is fine entertainment and it's certainly a far better movie than the recent Star Wars efforts. But it's no masterpiece. It pales in the wake of classic swashbucklers like "Captain Blood" (Errol Flynn) or "Treasure Island" (the one with Jackie Cooper and the Disney one with Robert Newton), or even the recent "Master and Commander".

Let's put POTC in the "fantasy" category. Within that context I would rate it much higher than within this TOP 250 FILMS category. It is a great fantasy film.

As a "spoof" it's not in the same class as "Blazing Saddles" or "Young Frankenstein" or "Love and Death", but it's very close and a job well done.

Good film. Rent it.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Howard the Duck (1986)

5/10

Really bad but saved (almost) by..........

18 October 2005

The presence and considerable talents of Lea Thompson.

My son's and I stood in line for hours to catch the local premier of this movie. They have still not forgiven me.

This movie is too loud and obnoxious. Noise and attitude is no substitute for a good script. I loved the Howard the Duck comics and had high hopes for the movie, especially with the participation of George Lucas so highly advertised.

I know now that Lucas's name was the only reason people went to see this turkey.

No, it's not the worst movie ever made. It's far from that. It, however, may be one of the biggest disappointments in the recent history of film. Compared to a truly awful "big" film like "Ishtar" or the recent "Gone In 60 Seconds", HTD is at least somewhat entertaining.

Fast forward to the scenes with Lea Thompson - who is one of the finer actors of her generation - and skip the rest. Without her I would have rated Howard The Duck a mere 3.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Citizen Kane (1941)

10/10

This film should be number one............

15 October 2005

Warning: Spoilers

as it's probably the best and most intelligent script ever written and it's splendidly and brilliantly directed and acted.

If you're looking for pure entertainment, you won't find it here. CITIZEN KANE is a thinking person's entertainment that touches on many aspects of morality and the lack thereof. Imagine a hybrid of "The Prince" and "All The King's Men" and you have something of the ideas at the core of CITIZEN KANE (yes, this predates Robert Penn Warren's masterpiece). That message is that power, be it monetary or political, corrupts AND destroys. That money buys the best of everything except that which is truly worthwhile. That an ego, left unchecked, will turn on itself. That loneliness is too often self-imposed. It is a story of a man's self-destruction - of how his desire to have everything and control everything ultimately results in his having nothing except his money and regrets. These were new and profound subjects for mass entertainment.

CITIZEN KANE is cinematic brilliance. It stands, arguably, at the summit of American cinema. As for me, I don't know if it's the best movie ever made. I do know that there are a few movies that are just as good but I know of none that are better.

6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

8/10

No way does this belong in the top 250....

15 October 2005

Shawshank IS a very good film but it has too many cliché characters and situations AND script holes that one can drive a truck through. Gee, this must be from a Stephen King story. Actually, it's from two of his short stories. With King its often quantity and not quality. Despite that, The Shawshank Redemption is worthwhile.

What this film does have is terrific performances from the entire cast and a sense that an honest man can remain honest, despite the worst of circumstances. The scenes with the great character actor James Whitmore, especially those of his trying to cope after his release, are very well done.

The last ten minutes is splendid and almost redeems the rest of the picture. It gives this film an 8 instead of a 6 in my scale.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mary Poppins (1964)

10/10

Practically Perfect

14 October 2005

Mary Poppins is, without a doubt, the finest non-animated film in the Disney canon (yes, there is lots of animation) and a genuine classic.

I won't repeat what's been said in the many fine reviews here on IMDb, I'll just say that there are a few problems that are glaring and make the film a tad less enjoyable for me: 1. Dick van Dyke's cockney accent is horrible. He sounds like an American imitating a Londoner trying to imitate a cockney. It's bloody awful! While I find his singing and dancing admirable and entertaining, his speaking voice is nails-on-slate. Had the producers just dubbed his speaking voice with that of Michael Caine - a real cockney - I wouldn't find this so annoying. This is tune out number one.

2. The film is too long. Some judicious cutting, especially of a couple of the lesser musical numbers, would have been in order. Also, the final boardroom scene in the bank goes on for far too long.

This is outweighed by the utter charm of the whole thing and the near-magical presence of the splendid Julie Andrews - a performer worthy of admiration if there ever was one. This is a woman with talent, incredible personal charm, and true charisma. She is a leading lady, pure and simple. She more than makes up for the aforementioned minor problems for every second she is on screen is magic.

One glaring omission from all the reviews I've read is an appreciation of the two ladies who played the elder servants in the household - the American character actress Reta Shaw and the British Hermione Baddley (sp?). Both lend top-notch support and are quite wonderful, especially Shaw, who was one of the most popular and talented character actresses of her era. (She is best remembered for her semi-recurring role on TV's BEWITCHED and for her presence in most of Doris Day's films.) Shaw was a skilled song-and-dance performer with a deep voice and commanding presence and a master scene stealer.

7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Showgirls (1995)

3/10

Not as bad as I had heard it was but.............

7 October 2005

This is still a real stink bomb of a movie. It's not in the same class of dreadful as, say, "Valley of the Dolls" but it's bad enough that I was feeling sorry for the cast for the damage this was doing to their careers.

Paul Veerhoven has directed some okay films and I thought his "Total Recall" was pretty good so we know he is capable of a better job than he did here. His technique is fine but he seems to have forgotten he was also working with "actors" who needed direction. Some of the acting makes me wonder if there was any rehearsal or even a script.

Yes, there was a script if that's what you call that thing written by Joe Esterhaus. And to think he used to be one of the premier writers for Rolling Stone back in its 70s heydey.

This movie is dreck - not awful enough to be good and not good enough to watch. All it is is a big misfire.

Don't bother.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Show Boat (1936)

10/10

Easily the best version of this landmark musical.....

7 October 2005

Warning: Spoilers

I had seen the 1951 version of Show Boat many times and I liked the movie a lot. Then, when I was about 30, I finally saw the Whale version of Show Boat and it was a revelation.

The '51 version has a much bigger budget and more sophisticated production values than the '36 version AND it boasted the talents of the incomparable Marge and Gower Champion and Joe E. Brown BUT...

The 1936 version is superior as both a movie and as a musical. While Ava Gardener is fine as Julie in the '51 version she is a poor second to the immortal Helen Morgan in the same role, a role which she had played, to great acclaim, on Broadway. Morgan IS Julie, world weary and melancholy yet determined to press on. It is a performance so charismatic that, once seen, cannot be forgotten. The same can be said for a very young Irene Dunne's effortless turn as Magnolia, the show's central character.

And what can be said of the great Paul Robeson that hasn't already been said? His "Ol Man River" is, quite simply, one of the best performances in the history of film or Broadway. The quality of his performance cannot be described - it must be seen and heard. Splendid and magnificent and so much more, Robeson will "own" that song forevermore. Oscar Hammerstein himself said that Robeson had taken the song away from him and had given it to the ages. One could not have higher praise than that.

Still, the movie isn't perfect. It suffers from the rewrite necessary to remove the more salient script points of the Broadway production that were forced upon the producers. Remember, this was 1936 and race relations were almost a taboo subject. That the "myscegenation" (race mixing) scene is almost wholly intact is a miracle. That much of the play's other less subtle references to race were left out is a shame but understandable given the times. And, it must be said, the 1936 production is FAR bolder than the 1951 version.

All movie versions suffer when compared against the Kern/Hammerstein original and they (both the play and the movies) are a far cry from Edna Ferber's wonderful but overwritten book. See the movie for what it is - the best that could be done in 1936 AND a showcase for two of the most remarkable talents in the history of entertainment, Paul Robeson and Helen Morgan.

29 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Robot Monster (1953)

1/10

This movie will induce bouts of near-terminal boredom

28 September 2005

Gorilla-like aliens try to take over the earth, which looks like a burned-out farm building. The alien walks and walks and walks and then walks some more. Where is he going and why? This isn't really the worst movie ever made - that has to be "Valley of the Dolls" - but it's gotta be the cheapest looking production this side of an Ed Wood magnum opus.

It looks like it was made for 49 cents........and it's only about 70 minutes long but it seems like it lasts for days.

The talent shown in this movie can be described in three words: zero, zilch, none.

The best part of this movie can be described in two words: "The End."

0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Honeymooners (2005)

1/10

What were they thinking?

28 September 2005

Hollywood has a bad track record making movies of classic television shows. "The Flintstones" was okay but the sequel was horrible. "The Beverly Hillbillies" was mediocre but watchable. I could go on....

And then there is "The Honeymooners." The original is arguably the greatest of all television situation comedies. It holds up very well, despite being 50 years old, because the premise (admittedly a take off on "The Life of Riley") works so well and, mainly, because of the magic of chemistry. Face it, Gleason, Carney, Meadows, Randolph, and Kelton were a cast that could not be surpassed. They worked off each other like they shared a brain and a soul. They were the reason "The Honeymooners" is classic.

They are also the reason the movie "The Honeymooners" does not work. In changing so much about the classic "Honeymooners" while retaining the personalities of the originals, the movie, rather than paying homage, spoofs and spoofs badly. But to pull off a spoof takes talent and timing, neither of which are an ingredient in this movie.

The cast is okay but there is zero chemistry between Cedric and Epps. The script mistakes noise and frantic action for humor and cleverness. The movie is not funny. It is not entertaining. It is stupid. It is embarrassing. It is a total misfire and not worth even a free rental. Watch a DVD of the classic "Honeymooners" instead.

6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Music Man (1962)

10/10

Simply the best...........

28 September 2005

The Music Man is a musical film that was done right and which, if anything, improves on its well regarded source material. It ranks up there with the all-time great musicals of Hollywood's golden age (and such British marvels such as "Evergreen," which starred the incomparable Jessie Matthews.

This movie has it all - wonderful music, a fine script, good production values and a top cast. What makes it really special is Robert Preston's tour-de-force performance. His performance is, quite simply, one of the most memorably great performances in the history of film.

It's one of those benchmark performances that must make any other actor who takes the role shake in their boots, for as long as the memory of Robert Preston as Prof. Hill exists all others will be compared against him and, likely, found lacking.

The rest of the cast is superior. I especially love Pert Kelton as Marian the Librarian's mother. Kelton was the original Alice on the classic "The Honeymooners" (she played Alice's mother later on in the series) and she had incredible comic timing. She reminds me of a combination of Ethel Merman, with her brassy voice and larger-than-life presence, and the comic genius of the great Patsy Kelly. It's a shame Kelton was not put to better use in the movies. She was a natural.

And then there is Shirley Jones. Lovely to look at and wonderful to hear and a good enough actor to keep up with Preston.

Buddy Hackett usually annoyed me but he's perfect as Prof. Hill's sidekick and his "Shafoofie" (sp?) number is a blast.

Funniest scene - Grecian Urns.

A splendid movie and one of the last great musicals. They truly don't make 'em like that anymore.

64 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

djohn2581-1

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed