Change Your Image
mlktrout
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Betrayal (1983)
Dictionary Definition of Bad Dialogue
I saw this movie in the late 1980s. I loved Ben Kingsley, Patricia Hodge, and Jeremy Irons in so many movies, I couldn't see how in the world this could be anything but a beautifully done piece. I was wrong.
I was about five minutes in when I started gagging on the dialogue. It was atrocious! This is an actual dialogue sample, near as I can recall it:
Hodge: "I'm going to tell him."
Irons: "You're ... going to ... tell him?"
Hodge: "About us."
Irons: "About ... us?"
Hodge: "Yes. I'm going to tell him about us."
Irons: "You're going to tell him about us."
I mean, was there screenwriter strike I didn't know about and they called in a plumber to write that? Or were the filmmakers deliberately trying to destroy the actors' careers and give the audience a lobotomy at the same time?
It just got worse from there. IMDB shows the long (intensely long) quote when Irons declared himself to Hodge. It's disgusting. Something about how she wore white at her wedding and he was the best man, but he should have "HAD" her so it would've been a black wedding. I interpret this as, "I love you, therefore I must pollute you." If only women got as much respect as our planet. We fine people for polluting the planet, and nobody ever says "let me pollute the planet because I love it." What's even funnier is there are people who think that's a great declaration of love. How is declaring that you want to spoil someone and make them impure equal to love on any level? It just sounds selfish and vile. And most of the movie is about these two selfish and vile characters deliberately hurting everyone.
Okay, I can't comment on the "artistry" of the project--most of it was set in a cheap, tacky looking apartment, suitable for a cheap, tacky affair.
I guess it's like the artistry of "Saturn Devouring His Son" by Goya. Yep, that's artistry all right.
His Only Son (2023)
His Only Son
I'm one of the supporters of this movie, so this is not entirely objective. With that caveat, I'll move on. My rating above is 7, but I think it's closer to 6.5.
I may not be as bright as some of the people in the theater; I really didn't notice the "bad wigs" one reviewer referred to. If filmmaker David Helling hadn't seen fit to do the big disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, I wouldn't have noticed a lot of the budgetary shortcuts. Of course the ones that were there were felt in a big way--I'll get to that in a minute.) I thought the costumes were well done and the acting was pretty good. I've always liked the biblical story of Abraham because he was so fallible. It gave me hope for people like me. I also loved the ending with the REAL "only son." The whole moral of the story was that while God asks everything from his followers, he asks everything of himself to. What he spared Abraham, he faced down himself.
There was a lot of literary license taken with this movie--lots of additions to the story that were okay but not great. What frustrated me was that they were made at the expense of other scenes that should've been in the movie but weren't.
We are told about how wealthy and powerful Abraham was but it's hard to imagine any of it. There were more than 300 people in his household. We are shown four. (I know--budget limitations. Maybe they should've taken out the Philistines.) We never see the vast herds and flocks Abraham was supposed to have had, and it's easy enough to use a couple of stock shots of sheep and cows. All we ever see is Abraham and Sarah in the middle of nowhere.
Much is made about the wickedness of Sodom and its bad end, but the "bargaining" between Abraham and God about the fate of the city was omitted. Much is made of Abraham's reluctant warrior days (rescuing Lot) but the character of Melchizedek is omitted. Both of these stories might have brought a little lightness or happiness, or at least relieved a little of the unremitting dreariness of so much of the movie. Even "The Chosen" (which Helling referred to several times) had moments of humor and fun and joy. The only joy in this movie was Isaac's birth.
Sarah was even worse than the biblical version. I don't think my husband had ever realized just how awful she was in her more awful moments.
One other thing. And I say this as someone who was a supporter of the movie: Beginning a movie with a lengthy complaint about lack of funds and ending it with a plea for more funds is not great filmmaking. Remember the movie got its financial support from sending emails. Remember the Chosen got its support from emails and Pay It Forward even before Dallas showed up with his collection plate out. My husband said David reminded him of "Dallas 2.0" with his end-movie plea.
I'm a big fan of the Chosen and well-made Christian films in general, so I do hope that "Jacob" will be made, and I seriously hope David Helling will learn from his mistakes in this movie and provide better pacing and a little use of humor to move the stories forward.
Watership Down (2018)
Have any of these high-mark reviewers read the book? (includes spoilers)
Okay, I did not watch all four episodes--I only got as far as episode 3 before throwing my hands up in despair. That's my disclaimer; it's also how bad this was, since normally if I make it halfway through something, I'll keep on with it.
First, I saw the movie in 1980 and loved it, so I ran out and bought the book. Since then I've read the book probably 12-13 times. It's on my Kindle too. So I know the book well enough to know where things differentiate, and anyone who says "it's not that different" has no memory of the book.
1. Strawberry was a male rabbit
2. The original Sandleford warren escapees did not include any does.
3. Holly told them (all; not just Hazel) about Efrafa; how he'd been captured on his way there and Hyzenthlay helped him and Bluebell (who had come with Holly) escape.
4. The rabbits did not go to Efrafa as a group, and it wasn't on the Keehar's recommendation. (Nor did Keehar tell them of the warren's existence; he only confirmed it after Holly told them--he and Bluebell had gone through it and managed to escape on their way to find Hazel's group.) Only Bigwig was sent in, by Hazel--not by random agreement while Hazel was away.
5. Bigwig's incursion into Efrafa doesn't occur until AFTER the return from the farm.
6. Clover and Hazel did not have this grand passion for each other. In the first place, she liked Holly and spent most of her time with him; in the second, the does were does and were brought in by biological necessity, not because Hazel was in love. Nor did Clover lead a big rescue attempt (or anything else; she was a passive doe. Rabbits do not live in a politically correct world; the female who came closest to being an assertive rabbit was Hyzenthlay).
These are only a few of the humongous differences. It's not as if Netflix had to rescue some stupid book that no one else could sell. "Watership Down" was an instant bestseller in America and has never been out of print. The first movie--a cartoon--was made in 1978, and aside from a song interlude, did not include anything that wasn't in the book; that film's only problem was that it left out so much of lapine culture and philosophy. But it was still a terrific movie (not for kids) and about five times better than this hunkajunk. When I first heard Netflix was doing a new version and it would be a four-part series, I thought, well now they can put in all the folk (rabbit) tales that the original movie left out, but instead they've put in all this PC stuff--humans are never going to stop until they've destroyed the planet and the like. The book simply said what real rabbits, had they been able to talk, would have said--"they just don't care about anything that gets in their way." Which is also more accurate.
I'd say give this one a pass (and save 3 hours of your time). If you'd rather watch an animated version than read the book, watch the 1978 version, which is 91 minutes long and just as much fun. And even more emotionally racking, because you can tell the rabbits apart; in this version they're all identical like Pringles potato chips.
Mowgli (2018)
Disney, Shmizny, READ THE FREAKIN' BOOK
People say this is a decent movie on its own, and it may be, but I have committed the capital offense of actually reading Kipling. Seems like people reviewing Mowgli films these days always compare it to Disney's fun but silly and non-canon cartoon. So I say, hey, for a change, why doesn't somebody--like a film maker--read Kipling's books? There's one out there called "All the Mowgli Stories" that collects every story Kipling wrote about Mowgli, and it's alternately pulse-poundingly action-filled, laugh-out-loud funny, and tear-jerking, where's the tissue box emotion-evoking, bloody Kipling got it right.
There was no rite of passage called "The Running."
Akela, Bagheera, and Baloo NEVER turned on Mowgli.
Mowgli's brothers never called him a FREAK.
There was no runt-of-the-litter-for-pathos' sake Bhoot.
No white hunters lived in Mowgli's village. The only hunter was Buldeo--an Indian.
Shere Khan--a much more interesting cat in the book--was killed by strategy.
Kaa and Mowgli were great friends, and Mowgli would nap in his (KAA was male) coils.
I have been watching Mowgli movies and TV series for more than 50 years, and I had such hope for this one. I kept thinking they've done everything BUT the way the stuff was written, surely they'll do it as written now. But no. I've never walked away from a Mowgli movie, no matter how bad, so I kept watching and hoping, but I could never find Kipling's sense of loyalty and fun in it.
Back to the drawing board, people. Try reading the book and maybe you'll get it right by then. I only hope I live that long.
The Horse Dancer (2017)
I wish this was a better movie...
Learning about the real-life Black River Ranch made me wish I could like this movie better. The movie is lovely to look at; the scenery makes me long to visit this place myself. And I love horses, so anything from Seabiscuit to Secretariat will find me eagerly in front of the screen.
But that's where I have to stop. Everyone else seems to find it flawed because of the acting, and it's true, you won't find any Oscar winners here; everyone else has already ripped the actors to shreds, so there's no need to go there now. But it's not just the acting. It's the writing. The main character, Sam, comes from a home where her mother is single and working too hard to ever associate with the girl; her main relationship is with her grandmother, whose sweetness and emphasis on friendship and teamwork makes it just not make sense that the girl is such a cold, standalone snot. It gives her a great character arc--but that isn't handled well either, as the girl spends most of her time on her own, and the only two friends she seems to make are with the counselors, not among her peers. Even at the end of the movie when she makes the video to save the camp (and the video was not her idea, regardless of what any other reviewer says; it was a counselor's idea and she went along with it).
There's something that looks like a subplot in the middle of the movie when one of the counselors approaches a lonely little bespectacled girl and tells her not to feel bad for having a speech impediment, because she'll find something that she does really well instead. So one would expect to see this little girl at the end of the movie, having found her "thing"--but nope, she's back at the campfire with all the other non-stars, singing the usual silly songs.
So the themes of the movie--friendship and teamwork--never are pulled off, and I blame this solely on the writers, who apparently were on the clock and anxious to get home to dinner. It's a shame, because it could have been a much better movie.
Ride (2016)
Is it Just Me?
I think it must be just me, for out of the other scathing reviews I've seen here, no one has asked even one of the questions I'm going to ask, but like the robber who said to Dirty Harry, "I just gots to know, man" I must ask the following questions:
1. Why is Kit's father, who oozes (urban) cowboy from head to toe, teaching classic (i.e. English/Eastern) style riding? 2. Why is Kit's father, who supposedly has a frightening resume of ranch (i.e., HORSE) work, never once shown on a horse? 3. Why is Lady Covington, namesake of Covington Academy, never shown on a horse? There are photos in her office...is there even a photo of her on a horse, past or present?
I could put up with the frightening lack of originality or even logic in most of the characters (why does Kit go all the way to England to indoctrinate the Brits to the superior American way in this age of "infinite diversity"?) or the frightening lack of horses in this supposedly horse-driven show (the horse we see most often is the stock shot of a rider on a non-descript bay riding across the camera at the beginning of any paddock scene). But I just "gots" to know the answers to the three questions above.
The Wedding March (1928)
No, I'm Not Writing About Fay Wray
I'll be right up-front in admitting this review is not about Fay Wray. Yes, she's in the movie; yes, she's good; yes, she's innocent and glowing and sexy. And Von Stroheim is fairly convincing as the prince, although he's not "classically handsome" at all. And it's slightly over-acted, but all silent movies seem to be, so that's okay. Not being a student of film, I can only guess it is because they can't use vocal tones so they have to go on gestures and expressions. Oddly, Von Stroheim is the only one who DOESN'T overact, since all his caricature roles are usually overacted horribly.
I originally wanted to see this, not knowing much about it, because when I read the summary about an Austrian prince, a loveless marriage, and an illicit love affair, I thought it was an early treatment of the Mayerling incident, which was a real-life story of an Austrian prince, a loveless marriage, and an illicit love affair, ending in a murder-suicide and contributing to the myriad causes of World War I. Of course I was wrong in this assumption, although there do seem to be some commonalities.
But the thing that ended up striking me most was not the acting, the actors, or the story. Or even the story behind the story (that it was supposed to be part I of a trilogy, etc.). What struck me was the music. This is not the film's original music, but a re-created score "Created by Carl Davis, based on themes of the Viennese Masters" according to the credits. And it does seem like most of the music is either a Strauss waltz or Schubert; I know I caught Ave Maria and I think I heard a little touch of Staendchen. But the weirdest part of all is the constant recurrence of "Deutschland uber Alles." Apparently nobody told Davis that Germany and Austria are two different countries, always have been, and despite occasionally having been allies, they didn't even like each other much. They were ruled by two different imperial dynasties; they fought each other; they didn't cross-pollinate. Austria's national anthem in 1914 would have been Land der Berge, Land am Strome, and the tune was by Haydn. A very weird choice for the score. Maybe Davis thought people wouldn't recognize Haydn, and he's probably right. But we do recognize the German national anthem, and some of us even know it's not the same as Austria's, and so it comes across as ignorant. For that alone I'd drop half a star, so this one gets 6.5 in my book, but of course IMDb doesn't allow halves.
Jack & Sarah (1995)
I Wanted to Like This
I wanted to like this movie. I like romantic comedies. And anything with Judi Dench and Ian McKellen must have something to offer. But I came away from this movie with my face all curled up, not in a good way.
Jack and Sarah is a movie about a carefree young lawyer named Jack who has a lovely, level-headed wife named Sarah. She's pregnant with their first child; they're moving into their first house, and everything seems like things can't get better. But when Sarah announces she's in labor, Jack panics and injures himself and wakes up in the hospital to discover that Sarah has had the baby (also, later, named Sarah) -- and died (from some undisclosed complication; we're never told.) He leaves his daughter and goes on a bender. He is joined by his homeless friend William (McKellen, in a wasted--pardon the pun--role). He's well on his way to being a lifetime drunk when his well-meaning parents and mother-in- law sneak in and put his baby into the bed with him and then refuse to help him. Suddenly Jack is a model of sobriety and loving fatherhood. He has to go back to work, so he takes the baby along, but that doesn't work...he interviews nannies but no one's good enough for his daughter.
Enter Amy, an American waitress working in a café where Jack chances to dine. Coincidence brings them together and he offers her the job of nanny--although she doesn't even know how to change a diaper, she's more qualified than the professional nannies.
Ever watch a romantic comedy and find that you can't root for the couple to get together? I end up doing it now and then; I don't want to, but when you're shown two people who have nothing in common except adoring the baby, it's just difficult to see the attraction.
But that's the whole problem with the movie: there's very little character development. Amy gets none. We have no idea why she's even in England. She's not much good at her job, whether it's waitressing or doing laundry. We don't know what kind of music, books, or movies she likes, or anything about her except that her boyfriend left her for someone else, and that she has a friend she occasionally hangs out with. She loves little Sarah, but heck, the baby or babies portraying her are so adorable that you'd have to be a lizard-like space alien not to, so it's not a real accomplishment.
There's a lot of Jack going through his grief and mending his relationship with his father, but that's about it. I don't know, beyond little Sarah, what it is that draws Jack and Amy together, nor do I much care.
The film is very disjointed, leaving me to think it was planned as a longer story and a lot of the (best?) scenes probably ended up being cut for time. Ian McKellen serves no purpose in the movie that I can see--and that's a shame, because he could have and should have been interesting. We see him as a lovable drunk, then at some point Jack apparently adopts/hires him as sort of a butler, and he of course tells Jack he's a dummy during the "boy loses girl" segment, but even that serves no purpose because everyone else tells him that too. (And I keep wondering why, because Amy's not an interesting person...) His major role seems to be in the surprise ending, and while that's certainly an eye-opener
SPOILER ALERT---------
he marries "Phil" (the mother of Jack's wife Sarah), even that's one that doesn't really make sense. It may make you laugh or cry, but if you think about it for longer than 30 seconds, you'll stop laughing and start going "but why?"
The person given the best treatment, I thought, was (Jack's wife) Sarah's mother "Phil," played by Eileen Atkins. She's good in every scene she's in, a loyal friend, a loving mother figure, and understanding when it's most needed. Of course that also serves to make you ask why, then, did she push Amy and Jack together, and why did she marry the sweet drunk?
There's even a character I was sure was supposed to be important ...her name was Pamela, and I'm not sure whether she was Jack's or Sarah's much-younger sister. Early on, it seemed as if she'd have something to do, but she abruptly disappeared after a few minutes and didn't show up again until the ending.
I know the movie title is "Jack and Sarah," not "Jack and Amy." And I get that in addition to a romantic comedy it's also supposed to be about Jack learning to be a parent. But even that's messed up, as Amy points out when she leaves him, since he's still irresponsible. Sure, he loves Sarah when he's around her, but he's not often around her--he's sloughing her off on nannies and grandparents so he can continue to work and go to bars and go on dates. I suppose the movie title could even be inferred to be about Jack's relationship with his wife Sarah, since he really loved her. But then he seems to get over her death remarkably fast, too, going out on dates with "Anna" his office boss and by his own admission trying to get laid. So physical need transcends grief. Okay, whatever...?
Maybe this is secretly one of those "existentialist" movies that people occasionally toss out there to make us question our existence, and what people see in each other that draws them to another person. Of course it offers nothing in the way of answers, but it's certainly confusing enough to make you ask a lot of questions.
My Favorite Year (1982)
My Favorite Year; My Favorite Movie
I was in Germany when the film came out so didn't see it for the first time until 1984 or so, but I have seen it probably almost every year since then. I should have it memorized by now, but somehow each viewing I find something new and special. I've loved it since the first time I saw it.
There is little I can add to the basic story--a washed-up Errol Flynn type of action movie star goes on a live television comedy program in the 1950s. O'Toole is just masterful in the part and according to director Benjamin, he even insisted on doing all his own stunts (some of which were dangerous!). I could believe him as a movie hero and as a real-life washout.
Joseph Balogna is just hysterical as the Sid Caesar TV star, rough, bombastic, occasionally mean, but kind under the crust, and utterly fearless. I grinned at every sight of him.
Mark Linn-Baker is superb as the kid from Brooklyn who finds himself rubbing shoulders with his childhood hero and discovering the statue has feet of clay. His embarrassment over his background and his weird family rings true and yet are hilarious; I forget the name of the actress who plays his mother, but she is screamingly funny.
I just can't say how much I love this movie, how inspiring I find it, how it touches my heart. But it's my favorite movie, and in a house where we own something like 5,000 movies and most of our conversations contain at least one movie quote, this film is quoted almost daily, so that's saying something.
Dodsworth (1936)
They Don't Make Great Character Studies Like This Anymore
I've probably seen "Dodsworth" 25 times in the last 35 years, and it never has grown old. There's not a missed mark or a bad performance in the whole film. As a character study of a man whose comfortable, happy retirement has suddenly become a nightmare, it's a jaw-dropper.
I won't waste time summarizing the action since others have done so and quite competently. I will observe that Fran Dodsworth's "flings" (played by David Niven, Paul Lukas, and Gregory Gaye) are in various degrees of seriousness with varying degrees of slimy characters. Fran is a silly woman, carried away with pretentious notions of what is and isn't "cultured," and accepts no responsibility for her own actions. It is amazing that she and Sam had such a lasting marriage, unless she had simply never had the opportunity to become such a social butterfly before. Ruth Chatterton's portrayal of her as a status-seeking woman, vain about her looks and terrified of growing older, is dead-on.
Walter Huston was a brilliant actor; I've never seen him in a bad performance. It's a shame he is largely forgotten today by the younger crowd who cut their teeth on action flicks and can't comprehend that black and white movies are just as good as (and often better than) their full-color counterparts. Huston played the Dodsworth role on stage and radio as well as film, and in the movie he brings to life the simple yet multi-layered Sam Dodsworth, who could give Job lessons in patience.
And what can one say about Mary Astor? I've seen her as vamps and mothers and she's always good. Here she is no vamp or mother, but a woman on her own, alone but not necessarily lonely. She is independent, quietly confident, and she open's Sam's eyes, not only to the fact that there is life after a crushing blow, but to the folly of hanging on to something that will only kill you in the end.
When Sam Dodsworth utters his final line in the movie, I have always cheered. Many lines have been written about love, but his well-delivered Parthian shot covers worlds that are to this day unexplored.
Shane (1953)
What Did Think Was Wrong with the Book???
"Shane" has been one of my top 10 favorite books for 40 years or more. I like Alan Ladd, love Jean Arthur, adore Jack Palance, so I thought I'd love the movie too. But something went wrong...someone somewhere decided the book was defective, and so they started making changes.
Minor change: the boy's name is changed from Bob to Joey, for no good reason. Major change: (SPOILER ALERT) in the book the two men, Joe Starrett and Shane, are practically the other half of each other. They are as close as brothers. The movie somehow decides to change this into a rivalry, so that from the time Shane rides in to the time he rides out, the two are finding ways to get at each other and better each other. They even seem to be fighting over Joe's wife, which is ridiculous.
Their rivalry even turns the scene where Joe prepares to meet Stark Wilson in town for the climactic shootout into a fight. In the book, Joe never knew what hit him; in the movie, the two men slug each other all over the house until Shane essentially can't take it anymore and belts Starrett with his gun. Then the boy, who has seen all this, yells that Shane cheated and "I hate you Shane!" "Joey" might, but Bob never did. He adored Shane from beginning to end.
There are other differences I won't bother with, but those are the ones that really made my skin crawl. The other thing that's inherently wrong with the movie is Alan Ladd. Nothing against the man; I have liked many of his other films. But he is not Shane. He looks nothing like Shane's description in the book, he has none of Shane's poetic fluidity of motion, and he's not convincing as a "secret" gunfighter. As a farmer, yes, he's plenty convincing. Maybe he should've played Starrett.
It's unfortunate the movie was made in 1953 and not in, say, 1967. Pernell Roberts would have been perfect as Shane. He looked the part and had the fluid grace, the alert watchfulness, and the dexterity of a gunfighter. Alas for things that will never be. But even if he had been Shane, the script would have needed to be rewritten.
There are things to like about the movie. I can't fault the cinematography and have no desire to. Jean Arthur was a great actress and I never tire of watching her. People who never read the book "Shane" by Jack Schaefer may love the movie.
But for anyone for whom the book is a near-revered classic, the movie is a sad attempt to "go one better" than the book and in the process, it misses the mark entirely.
Les Misérables in Concert: The 25th Anniversary (2010)
It's Good but Lacking
From the time I learned of the existence of this concert, I coveted it, and now that it's out on DVD in the UK I praised the Lord for my multi- region DVD player and bought a copy. Watched it yesterday for the first time and will watch it again. It was a fine show.
The stage was a lot bigger than for the TAC so there was more room for the cast members to move around, and some of them chose to liven up their performances a little based on the extra space. A few still acted glued to the microphones. The orchestrations have been changed; I'm not enough of a musician to point out each one, but the overall result is impressive.
I wish I could warm more to the cast, though. I have read elsewhere that the voices will grow on the viewers over time, so I'll listen to the CD of the performance a few times and see if it helps. I've seen several different Valjeans in London and on tours, so I don't think I'm one of the ones who must have Colm Wilkinson, but the new Valjean didn't overly impress me. He wasn't bad, but he didn't bring me to tears the way Phil Cavill did back in the day. Javert's voice seemed a little thin.
But where they really went wrong was the students. Oh dear Lord. Where did they dredge up this Marius? He looked like he was still in middle school, and I half expected him to stop to apply some Clearasil or get his mutant ninja turtle lunch box before continuing. And someone please tell this incarnation of Enjolras that looking wild-eyed does not necessarily equate to passion.
I've seen LM 10 times on stage in London, Boston, Atlanta, and four cities in Florida -- including one high school production -- and have seen the TAC more times than I'll admit. I have cast recordings from the French concept album, the original London and Broadway casts, the complete symphonic version, and the Vienna version in German. But from the hype surrounding the 25th anniversary, I had somehow expected this one to be more, and it's not quite living up to expectations. It's good, but not good enough to justify the excitement. I've read that it will grow on me, and am willing to watch/listen again with the hope that it does.
Possible spoiler...One last note: the encore includes a brief appearance by the 1985 cast. Colm Wilkinson still has his "oomph." Michael Ball has put on so much weight I'm amazed he could still squeeze a few notes out, but he managed. Final observation: the harmony on the "Bring him Home" number was really nice.
Dean Spanley (2008)
Life as a Dog...Life without Tears
What a great movie.
Peter O'Toole's character, old Mr. Fiske, believes himself to be impervious to pain. There are things that happen and are simply inevitable. There's no point in mourning. This belief drives a wedge between him and his son (Jeremy Northam), since O'Toole doesn't mourn properly for the loss of his other son or for his wife, who apparently died of grief.
Enter Sam Neill's character, Dean Spanley, who believes himself to be the reincarnation of a dog, and remembers with greatest joy the fun of rolling in dung and tearing apart rabbits. Young Fiske (Northam) discovers this and plies the man with Tokay to get Spanley to open up about his past life. And the Tokay -- supplied by a strange and rough but very funny fellow named Wrather (Bryan Brown) -- works its magic, getting Spanley to reminisce about the good old days as a dog even as both young and old Fiske AND Wrather all realize something critical about the dogs Spanley remembers.
I won't say more, as I don't want to spoil it; I will simply say I loved it. I don't believe in reincarnation, but this is a movie any dog lover can enjoy, as well as anyone who's ever had a strained relationship with a parent or child. You're left with a smile and a bit of mist over the eyes and perhaps a wild impulse to go and roll in some dung, or chase a rabbit.
The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged) (2000)
Make it Part of Your Life!
I saw this live in London in 1996. At the time it was just a show to see to pass the time. I had no idea.
From the beginning, it was one howling, screaming laugh after another. I was in tears and had nearly wet myself by intermission -- had to run to the bathroom just to keep from wetting myself in the second act!
Several years later the video came out. After all I had told my husband and sons, they couldn't believe it and held no great expectations; even I was wondering if I was remembering "with advantages," to quote the Bard. But within minutes all three of my teenaged sons were howling -- and two of them didn't like Shakespeare at all. My husband, who never laughs out loud, was bellowing and gasping for air and had tears in his eyes.
Since then I'm pretty sure we have seen it a hundred times. And it's always funny, even though we could recite it right along with the actors. There's the glint in Adam's eye just before he "vomits," the hysteria-inducing advice "tuck your boobies in!" when performing in drag, the idea that's "totally boatless." We all quote lines from it frequently and adapt them to our own situations. (As a beta tester at my job, I swore that I would "refuse to do dry, boring, vomit-less computer testing.") Oh, the production? Well, they don't actually do all the plays. The comedies are all combined into one (and are better for it). Macbeth is done "with authentic Scottish accents." Othello becomes a rap number (that I frequently sing around the house). Titus Andronicus is an Emeril-inspired cooking show. Some plays, like Coriolanus, are barely mentioned; others like Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra are briefly sketched. The ones done in most detail are Romeo and Juliet, and Hamlet (which is given by far the most attention, even being performed backwards at one point).
There's no way a review could do this wildly imaginative three-man show justice. See it yourself--repeatedly. Learn it backwards and forwards. Quote from it. Make it a part of your life! You won't be sorry.
Rebecca (1997)
Inferior Attempt
I wanted so much to like this version of "Rebecca." I had seen both the Hitchcock movie and the 1979 Jeremy Brett/Joanna David/Anna Massey version, and read the book countless times. A new version with another talented cast seemed like a great idea.
Unfortunately it didn't work. Charles Dance is nobody's idea of Maxim de Winter. He doesn't look like the description in the book, nor does he sound right in the part -- "de Whiner," maybe. He's totally ineffectual in the role. Ms. Fox -- the daughter of Joanna David, repeating her mom's role -- is not bad but not too good either. And poor Diana Rigg! I had thought she would make a wonderful Mrs. Danvers. To my shock, she was terrible. Someone please tell her that "bad hair" does not automatically equate with menacing!
The casting is bad enough, but what in heaven's name possessed the writers to go tampering with the plot? Du Maurier's plotting was masterful. Apparently someone wanted to put his own individual stamp on this version, and in the process changed a couple of key parts of the plot. And we can't even blame the Hayes Code! The Hayes Code of the 1930s and 1940s said "good guys" couldn't deliberately do bad things, so the Hitchcock version's key plot change was a concession to Industry Standard. This 1997 version has no excuse.
Possible spoilers: Someone deliberately, gratuitously, changed the method of Rebecca's death. Why? And why give Maxim some sudden inexplicable desire to rescue Mrs. Danvers from the chaos she created? Did the writers not read the book first? Or did they decide that the book, which had been a classic and a commercially viable success for almost 60 years, needed improvement?
VERDICT: If you haven't read "Rebecca" by Daphne du Maurier, this may seem like a serviceable, if not very thrilling, story. It probably won't drive you into the bookstore either, though. (The 1979 version sent people scurrying in droves to the bookstores.) If you HAVE read du Maurier's wonderful book, you probably already know that the version truest to her story (the one du Maurier herself called truest to her story) was the 1979 version. Run, don't walk, to find it. Unfortunately that will take some doing, since the BBC in its infinite wisdom has given us the 1997 version on DVD while refusing to make the far superior 1979 version available. The last time the Brits made such a bad choice, the American colonies revolted. Maybe we should do it again and not watch anymore Brit TV until they give us a proper version of "Rebecca."
Free Enterprise (1998)
The defining metaphor for anyone who's ever been obsessed.
My husband and I came across this movie 10 years ago and have probably watched it 200 or more times in the last decade. We had no idea what it was about when we bought it and hubby said it couldn't be good since we'd never heard of it. Were we wrong.
This movie is the defining metaphor for anyone who's ever been obsessed by anything. We are Trekkers, old movie fans, enjoyers of old-time sci-fi. This movie covered them all. References were thrown around ranging from the Godfather to Touch of Evil, from wine cooler commercials to Apocalypse Now. The stars spoke to each other in movie quotes--something my whole family does all the time--and long to meet the heroes of their childhood. In their case, the hero was Shatner. To say he was not quite what they expected would be an understatement. Shatner seemed to enjoy this self-parodying role, and I have to say I enjoyed the Orion slave girls and Shakespeare rap songs. There IS a plot, but it's the characters who drive this movie and they are real people -- with an element of magic.
Ride Lonesome (1959)
One Word -- Breathtaking
I've seen this movie six or seven times. Not much I can add to herbgedi's great summation, but I love "Ride Lonesome." And really, what's not to love? It's amazingly short and sweet, with tons of nuances and shadings packed into that very short period. The cinematography affects me every time I see it--it's breathtaking at some points and almost claustrophobic in others. The dialogue is terse but full of wit, some very barbed humor, and there's not a word that doesn't belong there. The characters are memorable; each has a backstory fully conveyed in the small space available, and even Lee Van Cleef's "bad guy," who could have been a simple boo-hiss villain with a less skilled director or actor, is shaded and three-dimensional. Each character's motivation is clearly explained, except possibly for Karen Steele. (I sometimes think she was there simply to fulfill the Western code, that there must always be a girl so the good guy can either kiss her or choose his horse at the end of the movie.)
James Coburn and Pernell Roberts are wonderful as the somewhat morally ambiguous characters out to gain a pardon for past sins, even if they have to commit a few present sins to get one. Roberts has some of the film's most memorable lines, such as the "way-down shiver" comment and his peculiar insights into the characters of women. He also plays a great game of chicken with bad guy James Best, even with bounty hunter Randolph Scott's life at stake. Scott is his usual western-archetype self: silent, courageous, grim, resolved, and still fun to look at, although Roberts easily creamed him in that last category.
Don't watch it if you just want a lot of shoot-em-up action, though. There is action, the tension building slowly enough throughout the movie to almost make one scream, and there is shoot-em-up -- but none of it is cheap or easy. You have to think about this one. But when you think, it's breathtaking all over again.
Just Visiting (2001)
Fun and Funny
I vastly enjoyed this film. I love movies about accidental time travel, and this one was more fun than most in the situations the two medieval men -- a knight and his squire -- found themselves in. Jean Reno, who seems usually to play heavier roles, shows great comedic flair, as does his squire, Christian Clavier. Christina Applegate was warm and sympathetic as the confused, distant descendant of the knight, and Matt Ross was a boo/hiss-worthy bad guy. Oh, and one mustn't forget Malcolm MacDowell, who really steals the show as the low-budget, eccentric wizard who messes up one spell after another.
The movie had some great laughs and even a couple of heartwarming, tender moments. I was sorry when it ended. I can't fathom why it has such low scores here, but trust me as a longtime moviegoer, with a collection of movies from the silents to the recent, this one is worth the time to watch.
The Last Legion (2007)
Fun flick and worth more than it's given
This movie was a fun, lighthearted adventure flick with lots of spills and chills to keep your interest up. The good guys and bad guys were clearly delineated. It was fun to see Colin Firth as a tough guy instead of the stuffy, stumbling, mumbling pseudo-nobility that he usually plays. Ben Kingsley is always fun. The kid was cute, the woman was tough, and Kevin McKidd, aka Lucius Vorenus of "Rome," is as good a bad guy as he ever was as a good guy.
My husband picked it up out of curiosity; we had never heard of it before and so went into it without expectations. When it went off we both were grinning. "Fun movie," my husband said, and he was right. I'll watch it again, too. It was that much fun. Kind of a throwback to a 1940's movie--I could easily see Basil Rathbone in Kevin McKidd's part, Errol Flynn as Colin Firth's character, and Maureen O'Hara as the feisty woman warrior.
I'm surprised to see all the horrible reviews. I don't know why people are so hung up on historical accuracy. There probably was an Arthur, but everything that is "known" about him is a legend anyway, so what's wrong if there's another movie to talk about the "legend before the legend"? And since the Romans were in Britain until 500 AD or so, what's wrong with a Roman precursor to Arthur? I watch movies to be entertained, and occasionally enlightened. If I learn a new fact (I always verify anything a movie depicts as fact before repeating it anyway) then so much the better, but I watch documentaries and read history books for my historical accuracy. There's nothing wrong with a good old-fashioned Saturday afternoon adventure flick. I liked it and am glad others were also able to take it in the spirit in which it was intended.
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
It was great except for one thing...
...and it's a pretty major thing at that. Gerard Butler can't sing.
This isn't a comparison to anyone else, I mean I wasn't expecting Michael Crawford. But I was expecting someone who could carry a tune. Butler is so good-looking, I wanted so much to like him as the Phantom. And so many other things about the movie were right. I could even forgive them for losing the hat, although as far as I was concerned the hat and the Phantom were as inseparable as the Phantom and his music.
So many things were good. Christine was radiant. Raoul tried not to be as white-bread as he is usually portrayed. Madam Giry was appropriately scary and wise. The opera guys were pompously funny and provided great comic relief. The visuals...my gosh, visually the entire production is something you could wallow in, and absorb it through your pores.
If only Butler could sing. I noticed his thin and reedy voice in the title song, but it didn't really start grating on me until Music of the Night. Only someone with a deep, resonant and powerful voice should be allowed to sing that song. The way he held that last note was not amazing, it was annoying, it was like nails dragging across a chalkboard and I was ready to scream and beg him to please stop! Everything else...well, everything but one. (Possible Spoiler follows). The unmasking is the big climactic moment of the story. Well, when we finally see the Phantom in all his disfigured glory, he looks like a guy whose chemo treatment went wrong. At best he's got a bad case of sunburn. I was expecting something horrendous, something formidable. This wasn't it.
I love this story. I've seen it in London, on Broadway and off Broadway, different Phantoms each time. I've seen understudies do it. In a movie the size of this one I was expecting to see a decent makeup job and a lead actor who DIDN'T sound like a combination of early Frank Sinatra and late Mickey Rooney.
Anchors Aweigh (1945)
Think About WHEN This Movie Was Made
The United States was still fighting World War II (the movie was released in between VE day and VJ day). Any studio worth its salt was either making fighting movies where fearless American soldiers beat the enemy, or Americans in general were singing and dancing. Technicolor Musicals were what America thrived on in the depressing days when everything was rationed. Most musicals of the day were simply a bunch of musical numbers strung together with the best available plot slipped in to fill time til the next musical number! I get the feeling now that the people reviewing this movie were all born after 1970. Depressing how quickly we forget.
This film could've been called "The Search for Jose Iturbi" but now everyone wonders why. Allow me to explain. From 1929--his arrival in America--until his death in 1980, Iturbi was one of the finest pianists to grace a concert stage. He agreed to do a few movies in 1942, but Hollywood had been after him for nearly a decade at that time. Not only an excellent pianist, but a successful conductor as well, Iturbi was very much a household word for more than 40 years.
The scene where Iturbi and 17 other pianists play one of Liszt's Rhapsodies was planned early on--and hasn't anyone ever noticed the other pianists were all children? Joe Pasternak, who produced that movie & many other MGM musicals, credited Iturbi with interesting America's youth in classical music. Grayson's wanting an audition with Iturbi in the movie was not unlike real life at the time. Everyone wanted Iturbi back then. The joke among soldiers was that "GI" meant "Get Iturbi" (he did a lot of concerts at military bases).
Gene Kelly was a great dancer and Frank Sinatra an excellent singer, but at the time this movie was made Sinatra was barely 30 and had only been under contract to Columbia Records for four years. Kelly was already well-known as a dancer, but Iturbi had by then been a world-wide sensation for 20+ years.
And as to the lack of a plot, Americans didn't need plot. They were tired of war, they were sick with fear for their loved ones, and worried about the future. They needed happiness and hope and the assurance that things would work out fine in the end. They needed music and smiles and joy and romance. This movie and others like it delivered just what was needed.
Enough lecturing. Mouse dancing aside, the best scene in the movie occurs between Sinatra and Iturbi with each of them "ignorantly" complimenting the other's music.
If you have any interest in Jose Iturbi, the Spaniard who conquered more of America than De Soto, Cortez, and De Leon put together, please drop by my website, www.joseiturbi.com, where you can find a plot summary, excerpts from movie reviews "of the day" and pictures from this and certain other MGM musicals of the 1940's, as well as a biography and discography of Iturbi.
Trout
Music for Millions (1944)
Warm and Wonderful
You'd think that any movie with June Allyson and Margaret O'Brien, Hollywood's two most famous "town criers," would be miserable, but "Music for Millions" is wonderful. Yes, there are tears. But with Jimmy Durante, there's also plenty to laugh about...and with Jose Iturbi there is plenty to sing about, although of course Iturbi plays, and doesn't sing.
Iturbi is the conductor of an orchestra whose male members are being swallowed into the war effort (by the end of the movie, there's only one man left in the orchestra besides Iturbi). Allyson is a bassist (NOT a cellist) who is pining away for her husband, missing in action in the Pacific. O'Brien is Allyson's baby sister "Mike," an eternal optimist and fiercely loyal to her sister. Durante is the manager, a frustrated musician himself and saddled with always making plans for things that you just can't make plans for.
Really, the star of the movie is the music itself, and it's some of the best you'll hear. Iturbi's "Clair de Lune" alone is enough to bring tears, and the first movement of Grieg's piano concerto--most of which we get to hear, when O'Brien isn't interrupting--is majestic. Durante has two numbers of his own, both hilarious reminders of why he was so well-liked.
I figure I'm pretty cynical, but even I was smiling through tears at the end. This is a terrific movie.
By the way, if you're interested in Jose Iturbi, please visit my new website, www.manyfountains.com to learn more about this great pianist and conductor.
Rebecca (1979)
Best Adaptation of Du Maurier's Masterpiece--why isn't this on DVD?
I saw the very last part of this 4-part miniseries 12 years ago on PBS. It was so fascinating I rushed out and bought the book. (And read it until the covers fell off, and because of it years later won a "Who was Rebecca?" essay contest and a trip to England.) For the next two years I besieged PBS with requests to re-run it, in 1996 they finally did. I savored each moment of it, and taped it of course. I still have the tapes, but wish it was on DVD.
Jeremy Brett -- later to become forever identified as Sherlock Holmes -- was the perfect Maxim de Winter. After hearing his story of Rebecca, you could finally understand why he married the Second Mrs. de Winter, shy, tongue-tied, and klutzy. She possessed the innocence he desperately needed. Anna Massey was a very creepy, scary Mrs. Danvers. In real-life, Jeremy Brett and Anna Massey were briefly married in their youth. It throws a new slant on the Danvers-de Winter relationship, doesn't it? And Joanna David goes from a girl afraid of her shadow to a woman who can take whatever is dished out to her by the end of the series. Excellent performances.
I've seen the Hitchcock version -- Maxim was too much a caricature of rude aristocracy, and because of the Hayes Commission certain elements of the story were drastically changed, with ill effect. I've also seen the recent Charles Dance version; interestingly the girl playing the second Mrs. de Winter in that one is the daughter of Joanna David, and she isn't bad, but Dance is nobody's notion of Maxim, and for completely gratuitous reasons they changed the story. Du Maurier's work is perfection itself and nobody should ever change it. The Brett-David-Massey version comes closest to the book, is beautifully photographed and hauntingly scored, with Debussy's "Reverie" and other classical and impressionist music played throughout. This is the one that needs to be on DVD...preferably a "collector's edition," with lots of special features.
Flight Command (1940)
Fun Flying Story
I gave this movie a look during TCM's Memorial Day Weekend marathon. I'm not sorry. There's nothing new in the plot: it's a typical "cocky kid screws up but finally proves himself" story with one interesting twist -- among the kid's (Robert Taylor, in a decent performance) many screw-ups is a friendship with his boss' wife which others perceive the wrong way.
By the way, the "boss" in question is his CO -- did I mention the "cocky kid" has just become a Navy Hellcat? -- and the "others" are his fellow officers.
The flying footage -- and there's a lot of it -- is okay but somewhat pedestrian since it's mostly training and search-and-rescue stuff. The movie was made in 1940 and several references are made to the war in Europe, but America had not yet joined in, so there's no combat flying. Still, there are interesting moments including a training and competition mission where the new pilot compounds an error and ends up tangled in a cloth target sleeve which nearly causes him to crash yet another plane.
Taylor is okay as the new pilot, although I'm not one of his biggest fans. The first couple of scenes between Pigeon (the CO) and Ruth Hussey (the CO's wife) seem a little awkward and the banter seems forced, but they get better. Pigeon excels in playing "nice guy without a clue about women" roles, whether he's the father or the husband. I wasn't familiar with Hussey before but will correct that mistake as she turned in a very nice performance. Likewise the performance of Shepperd Strudwick as her unfortunate brother -- inventor of a navigational device he hopes will enable planes to land in fog. Red Skelton's role as "Mugger" seemed artificial and forced -- unusual, I thought, as he usually seems very relaxed in front of the camera, but I have heard this was his first movie.
It won't win any awards, but it's a fun way to spend a couple of hours, with a likable story & performances.
Ike: Countdown to D-Day (2004)
It's darned frustrating...
There must be an unwritten rule in Hollywood that any movie about Eisenhower must demean George Patton. They did it 20+ years ago with the mini-series by the same name, taking a real incident in which Patton, to Ike's surprise, had a contingency plan for the battle of the Bulge and whipped his troops into a 180-degree turn to come to the rescue of Bastogne. In the movie, Ike coaxed an extremely reluctant Patton into it; in every historical account, Patton practically begged for the chance.
Now we have a new one in which the always likable Tom Selleck plays Eisenhower (a happy choice of actors, although Selleck really should've dyed his hair) and we get to see anew his struggles with Churchill, Montgomery and other Brits, not to mention the loathsome Chuck deGaulle. But does Patton fare any better? Nope. Not only did this movie manage to combine the Sicilian slapping incident--which had happened a year earlier--in with the "Knutsford incident," but it, like some newspapers of the day, manages to misquote Patton again (he really DID mention the Russians, even the Knutsford witnesses say so) in order to throw in a 21st century politically correct diatribe about "racialism". And what happens? Blood 'n' Guts Patton trembles at the mighty Ike, promises to be good, and when graciously forgiven, pulls a scene straight from Blazing Saddles ("Mongo have deep feelings for Sheriff Bart!") and throws his arms around Ike, hugging him so violently he (Patton) loses his helmet in the process. It made me laugh to hysterics.
The rest of the movie isn't bad. Thankfully, the Summersby romance thing seemed to be ignored or at least irrelevant in this movie, concentrating on the tensions among the leadership. The part where Ike talks to the airborne troops shortly before they depart is very well done.
But Eisenhower was a decent enough general and politician to stand up to scrutiny on his own. It isn't necessary to make him look better by making George Patton look worse. Patton was infinitely capable of making himself look bad, and he did plenty of times on his own. Fictionalizing Patton doesn't make Ike look better. It just makes the writers look cheap.