Stu-42 Reviews

Cross of Iron (1977)

I don't think a hot shower and paxil is going to help....

[2/10 · 14 July 2015]

I don't think I'll be able to forget this vile "film." Easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen, I'm absolutely stunned at the rave reviews and high rating it has on this wonderful site. Usually the reviewers get it mostly right, but here is a good example of how nothing is perfect. I don't know where to start criticizing this piece of trash. With a cast that includes some of my favorites I was expecting an interesting experience and was punished with a nightmare mess of a movie. I felt so sorry for James Mason as I couldn't figure out what accent he was trying. Maximillian Schell is awesome, but here I actually laughed out loud twice which could not have been the intention of the writer or director. I could only understand about 20% of what David Warner was saying and James Coburn was supposed to be the star I guess and had about 12 sentences of dialogue. He also had a totally unintelligible scene with some woman, maybe a nurse? I had to really stretch to find a reason to give it a 2 instead of a 1. A couple decent lines and battle sequences is about it here. I kept waiting for it to get better, but amazingly enough it got worse towards the end! If you have to see every movie ever made, then go for it. Otherwise, there has to be a better choice out there somewhere.

The Love Boat: Marooned/The Search/Isaac's Holiday: Part 2 (1978) Season 2, Episode 2

second review so far, couldn't be more different

[4/10 · 2 July 2010]

I guess I was watching a different episode... After watching the entire first season and loving it I just got the second season and began with this clunker of a 2 parter. Easily the worst so far, I can only say that they must have been trying something new for the 2nd season and swung and missed. Almost every single thing missed the mark here culminating in an absolutely puzzling climax with the soap opera star and his mother. Very few highlights: Julie being made fun of by the captain and the discovery with Dick Martin at the end. ONLY for Love Boat completists, everyone else stay FAR away. I'm only hoping that after this fiasco the crew returns to their regular goofy lovable selves.

Cinderella (I) (1965 TV Movie)

In the minority again

[5/10 · 9 June 2010]

I know that I run the risk of upsetting some fans here, but I just have to be honest. I have watched this one with my 7 yr old daughter several times and although I must admit I've grown to like one or two things here, it really is a very bad movie. Some of the songs are not too nauseating and one or two are actually cute like the "Christopher Rupert" part. Just because it seems to appeal to young people so much I took it easy on it rating wise, but it may well be the overall worst performance of a cast in its entirety of all time. I've never seen a movie where every single performance is terrible with this many talented people. That tells me something else was wrong, maybe the director? Ms. Warren looks and sings OK I suppose, but her acting is pretty stiff to put it nicely. The rest of the cast is actually much worse with Stuart Damon giving an unbelievably uncharismatic and stilted rendition of the prince. Even the king and queen are just awful and I love Ginger Rogers! Walter Pidgeon looked asleep as did just about everyone else. The stepmother and stepsisters get an A for effort here, but the acting was from the land of the zombies or mummies or something. Very strange. I can't quite figure out what people like about this and of course I'm talking about adults. No, I'm sorry, but the Disney animated version is absolutely superior in every single way.

Cinderella (1997 TV Movie)

Surprisingly bad

[5/10 · 9 June 2010]

I don't know what it is about Cinderella movies with real people, but they just can't come close to the original Disney classic. I guess there were a couple of good things about it, mostly that prince is giving a ball zaniness in the first half. I like Bernadette Peters, but it kind of shows how tough it must be to make a good live action version because I didn't even like her all that much. The pc stuff was pathetic yes... And kind of creepy... But, overall, it was just the very bad songs and mediocre at best leads (especially that guy) which sank this one. My recommendation: watch the Jason Alexander dancing part and if you can put up with his bizarre accent you'll enjoy at least that much. The rest is good for your 7 or 8 yr old daughter.

Rob Roy (1995)

Downgrade from decent to not that great

[5/10 · 16 July 2007]

I'm confused as to why I seem to be in the minority here on this one. OK, the movie had its moments where it felt like a pretty good action pic, but there were two glaring problems. First the editing left a lot to be desired or in this case left too much of the undesirable. The other thing bothers me more because no one pointed it out in any of the negative reviews here: unbelievable gore. No, there wasn't much of it, but what was there was just horrendous. I would say the scene with the most blood was actually the most disgusting thing I've seen in about 10 years. If you don't mind gore but find disgusting sexual situations are more offensive, then you'll be unhappy to find an almost equally repugnant action here. Amazingly, the film doesn't seem to notice how gross it is and the music swells as if in any other triumphant scene in other much better movies. What the heck were they thinking? They ruined a perfectly average entertainment and created something I'd rather forget. I would strongly recommend Braveheart instead or even King Arthur.

Gung Ho (1986)

Now I remember why I didn't love the 80s

[5/10 · 18 June 2007]

OK, we all like Michael Keaton and it's fun to sit back and watch a light silly 80s movie. The only thing is after Night Shift and Mr. Mom, they must have ran out of ideas because this one fell far short. It had some funny moments and some decent ideas, but it didn't really go anywhere. There was a strange awkwardness throughout the whole film as if there wasn't a clear vision of what was supposed to happen. Many scenes were almost funny or even almost dramatic, but very rarely hit the mark. Also, by the late 80s pop music hit an absolute low and here we get to sample some of the most awful tunes including one near the end in the factory that actually spoiled a scene that could have accomplished something. I must also point out the strange acting or was it bad casting or directing? Watanabe was great in Sixteen Candles, but was he a little young to play a top executive or was that just me? George Wendt was very odd, doing things that didn't quite make sense or feel right. I really wanted to like it and I guess it was pleasant enough, but I realize now why it's only rated a 5.7. It reminded me of The Dream Team- you wished it was good, but it just wasn't.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

The good, the really good and the not-so-good

[8/10 · 6 May 2007]

If this were the only movie Leone made there wouldn't be enough praise you could lavish on it. It is amazing and fans of this genre will be thoroughly pleased. However, this is not only not Leone's best, but actually is his third best! Yes, I am aware Fistful of $ is a remake- doesn't matter, watch the movie, it's mesmerizing. You had the classic opening 10 minutes with no dialogue, the clever storyline where each character knows something the other doesn't and the climactic gunfight. One mustn't forget the wonderful Morricone score. There were some problems though that we might not want to face because we love Sergio and Clint, but let's face them just the same shall we? Brutal violence is a trademark of this genre, but here it was done over the line where it was unnecessarily vicious. It worked in Fistful because there was a sort of logic to it whereas here in scenes like the shot through the pillow and the abandoning of Tuco it came off as being just too cruel to justify. Slapping of women and leaving people to hang are tough elements, but ones that had a feel that they belonged. As for the gunfights, they were good of course, but you get the feeling that they could have been better or more convincing. Also, I must agree with those who say it's a trifle long and before you say "Hey, you have to get the feel of the movie and you don't understand what Leone's trying to do" remember I'm a huge fan and am merely saying that there wasn't quite enough here to fill out 3 hours worth of movie. To say this movie was awesome doesn't really do anyone any good because we all know that. What we don't seem to know judging by the fact that this is #4 on IMDb is that there are better movies out there that didn't have these kinds of problems. Leone took his concepts and gelled them into the masterpiece that followed called Once Upon a Time in the West. I dare you to watch that one and then still give GBU a 10. OUATITW does all the things exactly right that this movie almost got right and then some. Even Morricone's score gets better in that one if you can believe it.

The Fatal Glass of Beer (1933)

Really quite bad

[3/10 · 20 April 2007]

I'm always in the position of being a spoilsport as I usually just review films when people don't see what I see in them. Most reviewers are extremely positive so there's not much point in heaping more praise on something so here I go again with the negative stuff. I'm a big film fan and I love delving into history and discovering actors and movies that aren't well known to me. When it's a hit, it's wonderful and when it's a miss like here it's a lot less fun. I've watched a little bit of Fields now and I'm convinced that he's not my taste and quite frankly I'm not sure why he's regarded as a top early comedian. Chaplin and Keaton were genuinely funny whereas I find W.C. mostly weird with an occasional humorous surprise. So far I've liked the Dentist the best and this one is the worst. Besides a rare chuckle for the cornflake comment and the quip about the dog with mustard I was pretty stunned at the completely unfunny material here. The scene with the bread being dipped is very frustrating and I didn't find an ounce of humor in the song near the beginning. I'm in the earlier stages of film history and I'm sure I'll develop more perspective and see more of Fields along with his other contemporaries. Perhaps my opinion of him will get better, but I'm afraid this film will not.

Sink the Bismarck! (1960)

A few good scenes, a few not so good

[5/10 · 6 March 2007]

There's something a little bit troubling about a film made in 1960 that has a 1950 feel to it. I'm usually not one to complain about the technical aspects, but in this case the b&w and the overall style made it difficult to get into as opposed to something like "Enemy Below." The first half was very slow going and had no action or tension whatsoever. Yes, there was some good drama in parts, but not enough to sustain a war movie. When the battle finally gets going it's interesting enough, but even then there were problems. What was the deal with the special effects? Very cheap looking, especially the torpedoes through the water and the exploding shells "near" the planes. Interspersed were some nice moments between More and Wynter, but again just not enough to propel this barge to greatness.

David Gilmour in Concert (2002 Video)

Hold on to your hats fans

[5/10 · 9 January 2007]

I'm giving this a 5 not because it was mediocre per se, but rather because compared to the Pink Floyd I know and love it was very disappointing. I was all ready to enjoy a different kind of experience from the great Gilmour when about 2 songs in I realized something was wrong. He was taking awesome music and making it depressing. The whole wonderful point of Pink Floyd was to create a feeling of being mesmerized by the delicious sounds of the unique band. Mellow music in some cases, on the fringe of sadness at times, but never boring or generic. Of course there was some fun in seeing him perform some of the classics, but it almost always ended up leaving me cold. I also wasn't impressed by that French song and even the special features were at best mildly interesting. Sorry, but go ahead and pick up the Pompeii disc instead, you'll get much more of what you really want.

Dark Star (1974)

I'm sure I watched the same movie, but...

[4/10 · 9 May 2005]

I think the first potential mistake to make about this film is to call it a comedy. It isn't. It's a first attempt for an awesome director that is mostly a failure, but shows some of the creativity that would appear in force later on. It's not that there were jokes that weren't funny, it's that there weren't jokes. At least not any more than in any of Carpenter's other films. Would you call Assault on Precinct 13 a comedy? Despite a couple amusing things like using an ice cream man I would have to say no. What's amazing is I seem to be in the complete minority about this being kind of a suspense thriller mixed with 2001 ideas. The beach ball alien was frightening because of it's cheap and silly appearance just like the doll in Trilogy of Terror and the weirdo creatures in Don't be Afraid of the Dark. Also JC's music is eerie and shows his talent in that area although of course a basic effort. The rest of the film is just a strange incomprehensible take on A Space Odyssey with not a single funny moment. I'm so glad Carpenter learned as he went and blossomed into arguably the best scary movie maker in history. Interesting only to see where he started. Deserves praise for being mercifully short which saves it from the disaster category.

The Big Bus (1976)

Sidesplittingly unfunny

[2/10 · 10 March 2005]

After about 20 minutes I could see where this was headed and it became one of the few films I just couldn't watch completely. Oh, I left it on just to see if anyone would say something funny while I thumbed through an almanac. Needless to say it didn't happen. I really wanted to like this movie too which makes it a shame. All the actors including one of my favorites, Ruth Gordon just couldn't do anything with an unbelievably not-funny script. I even tried to like it in the same way I did Airplane, which had what I call stupid-humor. This was just stupid. Even some interesting action ideas were made as to have me turn my head away after a couple minutes. Avoids a 1 because of Gordon, the piano player and one nice stunt sequence on the mountain.

Blow-Up (1966)

Another review against the grain

[5/10 · 1 January 2005]

As I read the comments here and those of a certain critic I admire I find myself in the minority on this one. Yes, David Hemmings is great. Yes, the 60s England depicted is cool and interesting and at times fun. And yes, some of the scenes are gripping and thought provoking. The key word is SOME. What people don't seem to be mentioning is that overall this movie is BORING. Don't say "That's because you don't have a good attention span" or "You must be a teenager." Neither of those is true- just face facts, it really isn't a very good movie (in my opinion of course!) There's a problem when talking about the movie and discussing the layers and symbols is better than watching it. A great film has both things- you really enjoy viewing it AND thinking about it later. Therefore this gets the obvious rating of 5 out of 10.

Avanti! (1972)

A different angle than most

[6/10 · 28 December 2004]

That the film is mildly funny and a decent Wilder attempt is to say nothing new. However, what I'm wondering is how people could be missing the offensive content here. If a man is put off by all the fat jokes about a woman who is slightly overweight, then what would the average woman think? Did they really think Mills was that fat? Or that the name Piggot was amusing? I didn't get it at all. Also, I'm surprised that no one seems to mind that a married man is getting it on with another woman on a business trip. I'm usually the one who is pretty liberal about most things, but here it seems I'm in the minority. Overall, the movie was O.K. with some good scenes with an original feel. As I go back and check out many older movies I'm finding that I'm not as big a Wilder fan as I thought. My first taste of him was One, Two, Three (1961) and that's still by far the best of the ones I've seen.

Death in Venice (1971)

There's always got to be someone to spoil the party

[3/10 · 1 December 2004]

I must chime in after reading all the glowing reviews. One's taste is revealed as an extremely important factor when it comes to art, namely film in this case. I like many of the foreign films I've seen and I heard some good things about this one so I decided to give it a try. I barely made it through without falling asleep. I'm sure there's going to be people that say- "That guy doesn't give slow movies a chance, he's part of the fast food culture." Well, that just isn't true, this is just a bad movie! When a movie doesn't capture your interest whatsoever except for some goofy singer (very funny part) then it must be said that you have a loser. For me anyway, that's the thing; it's about what one finds engaging. "Once Upon a Time in the West" is one of the slowest movies I've ever seen and also one of the greatest of all time. Check it out if you strongly disliked Death in Venice. Also very highly recommended is Herzog's "Fitzcarraldo."

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

Don't read if the truth offends you

[6/10 · 27 September 2004]

This movie was OK. It wasn't spectacular and was on the overlong side. That's really not what you would expect from a big name film with big name stars. I guess I got about what I wanted from it, but to say that it's as wonderful as what I'm reading here is just not accurate. First off, you know you're in trouble when Leonardo Di Caprio is the best actor in the movie. I'm not a fan, but he did do the best job. I like Tom Hanks, how could you not? However, his acting talents are incredibly overestimated. For the first 20 minutes I was having a hard time trying to figure out what his accent was- southern, East Coast or perhaps Australian? Weak. Next, there's the infamous Christopher Walken. Amazing how no one mentioned him in the 20 or so comments I read. Maybe they didn't want to say anything bad about someone so well liked. OK, leave it to me to do the dirty work. Once again I'll bash another extremely popular actor: Walken is a terrible actor and in this movie he actually was a little better than I've seen him- slightly less terrible. I also read that this was totally original and that the "cat and mouse" idea was just great. This film didn't have an original feel to me and just off the top of my head I'm coming up with 2 other chase movies that blow this one away: Heat (De Niro) and The French Connection. Sorry to have to burst everyone's ideas, but I can't lie to you. I must also do the unthinkable again; yes, I'm going to say a few words about Spielberg. He has some talent, but his movies are filled with a certain sappy quality that just doesn't ring true or have any relevance. Perfect example- that thing with the floating $ bill that someone said was a nod to Forrest Gump (a forgettable movie to be sure). I guess people like that sort of stuff, but it's just silly and overdone. Well, I think I've ranted enough. I just feel there are many other better movies to get excited about out there. For Tom Hanks fans I still say "Big" (1987) is his best. For Spielberg I strongly recommend his first and best effort "Duel" (1971). For Walken and Di Caprio fans- you don't want to hear what I recommend.

Legend (1985)

Not much of a review considering I couldn't make it through

[2/10 · 28 June 2004]

I'm sorry to say I can't offer much of a critique except on the first 25 minutes which is all I was able to stomach. I had a feeling I was in trouble almost immediately when during the first scene which apparently was supposed to be dark and menacing I found it silly and amateurish. After several amazingly incoherent dialogue and action I had to bow out on a scene where some goofy creatures were speaking in accents so ridiculous that I knew there was no possible way I could take this film seriously. As such it marked only one of a handful of movies I stopped early. I'm not sure why, but I even watched "Dune" (Machlachlan, Lynch) and "A.I." to the end. I'm a glutton for punishment I guess, but this one was unreal. What a tremendous disappointment from Scott who brought us one of the absolute best of all time in "Alien."

Dune (1984)

A brutal report of this ghastly mess

[2/10 · 12 June 2004]

I just watched this movie after all this time. I skipped it at the theater and never got around to viewing it- until now that is. The bad reviews kept me away and now I can see why the buzz was so negative. This was without a doubt one of the worst films of all time. Absolutely laughable acting, dialogue and yes- even special effects at times. There were some nice sets and Von Sydow is always good, but apart from that- sickeningly bad actually. I was surprised to see something that would make "The Fifth Element" look like brilliant, wonderful cinema. I remember liking the book and the characters in it. Why were the characters in the movie so terribly unlikable? Notably Paul, but honorable mention goes to De Vries, The Baron and Dr. Wellington. Since some really good people were cast, I think the blame has to go to Lynch on this one. He has outdone himself which is saying a lot considering the awful and awfully overrated "Blue Velvet."

The World of Henry Orient (1964)

Excellent performances, very uneven

[5/10 · 2 June 2004]

I did enjoy the performances and Sellers as usual comes up with a strange and interesting character that wavers between hilarious and confusing. His accent kept going up and down from British, French, "American" and who knows what else! I guess I just didn't connect enough to appreciate the story to the extent that the other reviewers did. Is it because I wasn't born yet at the time this was made, or perhaps being male has something to do with it? It just seemed to me that this film alternated between funny, sad, dark, odd and then funny again in a way that wasn't entirely satisfying. I'm the only person that seems to have anything less than terrific to say about this one, so I guess it's just me. Doesn't change my mind though!

Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970)

Decent, but missing something

[6/10 · 15 August 2003]

This movie had great actors, was shot on location for much of it and contained some very interesting history. However, it wasn't a great film, rather it was pretty flat for the first hour and a half. I think the length hurt without solid direction and the battle scene while very good was not enough to make this one a winner. Even the excellent Jason Robards didn't seem to have much of a chance to do anything here. I couldn't help but have the feeling it could have done a lot better with tightening up some of the history which came out somewhat confusing. For example, the time references on Dec. 7th were mixed up including a mistranslation of the Japanese language. Also, certain points of the story which could have been made to be very dramatic just sat there such as the anticipation of an attack on Nov. 30th that didn't happen. Ideas like these were just forgotten about leaving this viewer with an unsatisfied feeling as if somehow there was a cohesion that was lacking. The last 45 mins. with the battle scene was what really had an impact here. There, I got the whole review done without mentioning Pearl Harbor. Darn! No I didn't!!!

The Spanish Prisoner (1997)

The most overrated movie ever?

[3/10 · 27 April 2003]

I was shocked to see such a high rating for this lame film. This one was actually worse than House of Games, which up until this point was the most amateurish I had ever seen in a non-home movie. The Spanish Prisoner had a bit higher budget and as a result "H.O.G." may still be the leader in crudeness, but at least "House" had some suspense. I don't even know where to begin with this movie- the bad acting? The ridiculous things the main character did? Perhaps the delivery of the lines which one source so rightly called "staccato." Either way, it was certainly not the worst movie of all time, but a definite turkey. I'm not even that good at guessing what's going to happen in movies because I usually just watch and let things happen, but I think my 6 month old daughter could have seen the "twists" coming and figured just about all of them out. I knew right away this was the same director as House of Games because of that horrible delivery where you feel like you're watching a bad play. Could Mrs. Mamet actually not be a terrible actress, but rather given bad direction? Were the weird sayings people would throw out there meant to not be funny? Was there actually supposed to be any guesswork or suspense here? These are the questions I'm left with. This would be a phenomenal film for a high school student and a shocking disappointment for a major director. I gave it 2 pts above the lowest rating for a) Steve Martin trying something different and doing pretty well considering and b) I made it through the whole movie without really wanting to turn it off that badly. For some truly excellent intrigue try "3 Days of the Condor" or the unheralded "Parallax View."

The Kentucky Fried Movie (1977)

Not quite the worst ever, but close!

[2/10 · 24 April 2003]

What a disappointment! Agonizingly bad "comedy" from the people that made really worthwhile efforts such as Airplane and Blues Brothers. I tolerate almost any bad movie, but this one actually had me fast forwarding- yes it was during the Kung-fu thing. It was truly amazing to sit there for unfunny joke attempts over and over again. Why did I give this a 2 instead of a 1? I know it's shallow, but there were 2 sex comedy gimmicks that were amusing mostly for the very sexy naked women. Apart from that it's right there with the absolute worst of all time. Many people seem to connect this one with Groove Tube, but I now see that is a horrible comparison. GT was great when it first came out and still has some extremely funny bits.

Trainspotting (1996)

Not quite bad enough to turn off, but very close

[3/10 · 27 February 2003]

I always feel compelled to write something when I seem to be differ completely with the views stated here. I guess I'm the only one in the world who didn't love this movie- in fact I thought it was awful. I gave it a 3 based on a few funny parts and for the effort of the cast. Apart from that it oscillated from sickening to bizarre with little or no redeeming qualities. No, it wasn't just because some guy stuck his head in a toilet that made me want to turn this movie off. There were several scenes that just were plain offensive as they were there merely for shock value as in Reservoir Dogs- another disgusting 90s mess. I give just about every movie a chance and I stayed with this one 'til the end, but if your tastes are anything like mine and you're not a glutton for punishment I strongly suggest that you avoid this one or turn it off after the toilet scene.

The Balcony (1963)

Ranks right up there as one of the weirdest ever

[2/10 · 27 February 2003]

I really like Peter Falk and I thought it would be interesting to see Leonard Nimoy in this early role so I checked this one out. I have absolutely no idea what it was about or why it was made. Yes, I know that it had something to do with a revolution and women selling their bodies, but what a strange film. Peter Falk is always a pleasure, but with ridiculously unintelligible dialogue as this it was even hard to watch him. The opening scenes of real footage were very interesting and from there on it was very tough sledding. I'm usually very lenient from the production side, but I just have to comment on the extremely poor "special effects" here. The parts where a background is used to depict scenes as characters are driving around were not only completely unconvincing, they're totally laughable. Two good things which raise this from a 1 to a 2 are the alluring Lee Grant and the mercifully short 84 mins.

Knute Rockne All American (1940)

Interesting only for football fans

[5/10 · 21 November 2002]

This was not a particularly good film, but as a football fan I found it had something to offer. I'm also a fan of older movies and often find myself in the position of defending these to the younger people who think they're silly. I'm afraid I was actually the one laughing here at some unintentionally humorous moments. Sorry Mr. O'Brien, but I don't really think the acting was all that good with most performances as wooden as I've seen. In fact, this being the first film I've seen with Ronald Reagan I was pretty impressed as I thought he was the best here although not really great. This was mostly just an interesting documentary style movie with tidbits of info that I wasn't aware of and as a look into the way things were over 60 years ago. The standout was the great football footage- what a blast! As a result, if you're not into the game you'd probably either fall asleep 15 minutes in or just laugh yourself silly.