Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
overrated western does not hold up well
18 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this movie when it first came out, like, almost 40 years ago. Was it really that long ago? I guess it was. Anyway, I remember it as being a good movie and I haven't seen it since. So now I have kids who are teenagers and so I think, hey, maybe they'd like to see a good western, funny and entertaining, so I put it in my Netflix queue, and it finally came up last week and we watched it last weekend.

What a disappointment.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why I ever liked this movie or how it got the reputation it has. It is simply a bad movie that does not hold up well. What makes it bad? The one attribute I would give this movie is boring. Really boring. The scenes just dragged on and on and it got so that I just wanted it to end. Like the bicycle/Raindrops-keep-fallin'-on-my-head scene. What was Hill thinking? If he wanted to establish a relationship between Newman and Ross, the length of that scene could have been cut by about two thirds. Likewise later on, when the camera was panning across sepia photographs of the three main characters to illustrate them making their way down to Bolivia. Again, way too long. We already got the point, but still the sequence dragged on interminably. I actually hit the FF button on my DVD remote at one point and even at 2X, I was surprised how long it took to get to the end of that sequence.

And the chemistry between Redford and Newman was almost lifeless, like a glass of soda left out overnight. I don't why, but all the lines (like "who ARE those guys?") I remember as being funny just fell mostly flat. Also, a good actress can light up the screen; but Katherine Ross was about as incandescent as an sick firefly. True, she was not given much to do in this film, but what she did get, she did poorly, reciting her lines mostly in a dull monotone. It's as if she was anticipating her later role in "The Stepford Wives" (which, incidentally, was a much better movie than this one).

So I don't know why everybody thinks this movie is so wonderful; I did not find it so and I guess I will have to be in the minority.
57 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Birds of Prey (1973 TV Movie)
3/10
Does not hold up well
6 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I put this in my Netflix queue based on the strong comments I read here. Boy, was I disappointed. The idea, a chase involving not cars but helicopters, has good potential, but it was executed poorly. This is a low-budget movie and it shows. The soundtrack was jarring and incongruous and sometimes Walker is seen in the helicopter moving his mouth in all sorts of strange contortions, but I guess this is because when this movie was originally shown, the music in the soundtrack was different.

The dialog was clunky and the relationship between Walker and the young girl was poorly thought-out and developed. The acting ranged from poor to fair; David Janssen never was all that good of an actor, but here he is adequate in a role that doesn't require much.

There's also a major continuity error when he stops to commandeer a fuel truck. Walker parks the helicopter on the highway, but then after he fuels up, the helicopter is clearly seen taking off from an open field, with the highway nowhere in sight.

I don't think this movie was good even by 1973 standards, and 35 years later, it is almost laughable.
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When Billie Beat Bobby (2001 TV Movie)
5/10
Preachy and lightweight.
17 July 2008
Amen, sister! Can I get a witness? Hallelujah, I'm saved! Yes, he orthodox gospel of feminist rectitude is proclaimed at full volume in this trying-to-be-relevant-but-mostly-fluffy made-for-TV movie.

My daughter has recently taken up an interest in tennis, so I dropped this lightweight drama in my Netflix queue, not expecting much either way. As it turned out, this could have been a really bad movie, but thankfully it's not. What saves it (hallelujah, it's saved!) from being just another dreary feminist harangue is good performances from Holly Hunter as Wimbledon champion Billie Jean King and Ron Silver as the aging hustler Bobby Riggs. I was going to further criticize this movie for unequal treatment: making King an actual human being but portraying Riggs as a nothing but a one-dimensional buffoon (after all, who doesn't want a dastardly villain who is easily dispatched?), but the more I read about Riggs, the more I came to realize that that was the way he was in real life.

This is not a fine-cuisine-and-red-wine type of movie; it's more like a Burger King meal deal. Fun, but not to be taken too seriously, and not with all the heavy-handed preaching.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2000 TV Movie)
3/10
Like 'Frankenstein, but not in a good way
4 May 2008
I never can figure out how turkeys like this get green-lighted by movie studios. Are they that desperate to make money?

I just wasted two hours of my life watching this giant pile of fail. It looked as if Coppola took 3 different movies: a martial arts flick, an east-west cop/buddy pic, and the Jekyll-Hyde story, and tried to stitch them all together Frankenstein-style into one movie. Add some crappy dialogue, cheesy one-liners that fail miserably and hambone acting (everyone in this movie is pretty bad, an Adam Baldwin chews the scenery like a beaver on crack) and the result is a confused, unappealing mess.

Don't waste your time like I did. Watch a good movie instead.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed