LDB_Movies Reviews

Angel on My Shoulder (1946)

Worth seeing for Paul Muni alone...

[7/10 · 30 March 2008]

Paul Muni was an actor who was way ahead of his time. Who else could have played Louis Pasteur, Emile Zola, and a gangster, all with perfect accents, inflections, and facial expressions? His kind of acting was so way ahead of his time - most actors in the 1930s and 1940s were typecast into roles that didn't allow them to play a variety of characters. But not Paul Muni. Most actors in the 1930s and 1940s did NOT do accents, even though by today's standards, we consider this a requirement - but not Paul Muni.

Having just watched "The Life of Emile Zola", Here his portrayal of Eddie Kagel blew me away. The movie itself is slight, and has some humorous moments. But Paul Muni's performance raises it above the rest.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

7 out of 10, but for Harry Potter fans only

[7/10 · 19 August 2007]

I'm giving this a 7 out of 10, and that is generous - and I do this to say that Harry Potter fans will need to see this (I assume they will see all the films) but others (casual fans, people who are just looking for a random film to see) will not understand nor like this film.

I will second what most of the critical pans of this film say, and that's that a lot of the book's important plot and themes were glossed over in favor of trying to cover too much in too little time. Even at 2:40, the movie definitely dragged, and yet they try to capture key plot points in 5 seconds at best. It seemed that they filmed a lot more than was shown, and edited out everything that seemed not 100% necessary to explain what was happening. However, adding a line here or there COULD have explained enough to the casual fan. For example, why not say that the Weasley Twins decided to quit school and go into business? That's one line of dialogue - and it would help explain why they would risk expulsion by flying through the OWL exam room making fireworks.

In the book, Harry getting kicked out of Hogwarts was a BIG DEAL. That's his ENTIRE LIFE - yes, it's a big deal. In the film, he's mildly upset, and quickly gets voted back in. In the book, Umbridge takes each teacher, one by one, to task and humiliates them in front of their own classes. In the film, she speaks one line in each class, and we're supposed to see that as bad behavior.

Very disappointing. How Yates gets the next HP movie before this one was even released is beyond me. Perhaps he learned something from this one, however, and the next one will be better.

Paths of Glory (1957)

Crying out for a remake...

[5/10 · 16 August 2007]

This film has good intentions, and as an anti-war film in 1957, I'm sure it was groundbreaking. However, in 2007, it doesn't hold up. Stanley Kubrick is a genius and one of my favorite directors. So what's the problem? Simply put - the accents of the actors. American actors, a lot of them from New York, are playing French soldiers in World War I. I just can't get past their wooden and sometimes unintentionally funny delivery of lines - "Youse don' understand, faddah, I don' wanna die!".

If this movie were made today, not only would they cast French actors, but it's likely it would be in French with subtitles, even if it were made by a US studio. Even casting British actors would have been better; somehow it's easier for us Americans to accept British accents for French, Romans, and all sorts of other nationalities.

It's unfortunate because I can see that the direction, cinematography, screenplay, and all the rest are top-notch. But the film as a whole failed me.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Extremely disappointing

[5/10 · 15 August 2006]

Pirates 2 is an extremely overlong, disappointing mess of a movie. It's about 1 hour too long. At 90 minutes, this film could have been very good. The effects are good, the makeup is outstanding, but there is no story to speak of. The acting is passable, saved mostly by Keira Knightly who, like in the first film, acts everyone off the screen.

I didn't stay for the "extra scene after the credits" - I was already exhausted by the film. The ending was disappointing - even though I knew there was a twist coming, I didn't know what. My idea for a BETTER twist (and what I thought was actually coming) is to have Tia Dalma say that SHE will captain the ship that will go to find Jack. THEN you'd have me lining up for Pirates 3 tickets. As it stands now, with an old retreaded character promising to appear in Pirates 3, I am finished with this series for good.

Save your money and see it on DVD if you must.

1941 (1979)

Absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever

[1/10 · 8 March 2005]

Steven Spielberg is my favorite director, but clearly "1941" is his worst film. It would be any director's worst film, and is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen (and I've seen a lot of them). If I could give it 0 out of 10, I would, but IMDb forces me to give it at least a 1. I couldn't possibly check off "contains spoiler" because there is no plot to spoil!

Basically, here's the formula: take a bunch of TV actors (John Belushi, Dan Ackroyd, Joe Flaherty, Lenny & Squiggy, Wendy Jo Sperber, Robert Stack, etc.), lose the script because there's no need for any plot or character development, and even though it's a comedy, you don't need any jokes - just blow something up with really expensive special effects or have things crash around the actors when you want to make people laugh.

Frankly I really don't see how this even got past the concept phase. Someone somewhere was afraid to say "No." I am writing this review only to warn people out there - DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME WATCHING THIS MOVIE! I watched it through to completion (albeit having to read a magazine to keep my sanity during the last half-hour) only because I love Steven Spielberg and wanted to see every one of his films.

You have been warned.

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

Good acting but generally overrated

[7/10 · 16 January 2005]

I wanted to like this movie, especially since I am a fan of Clint Eastwood as a director and Hilary Swank as an actress. The previews didn't interest me at all - but the almost universal praise heaped on this film did make me want to see it.

I agree with the reviewer who said the film felt "scripted" - not only that, but watching scenes (near the beginning) with Clint and Morgan were like watching people "act" and "play the scene". Hilary Swank saves the day with her performance, believable and truthful. Clint's work later in the film is exemplary. Morgan Freeman is, well, Morgan Freeman, and here he plays simply a variation on his "Driving Miss Daisy" character, mumbling through some scenes making his words incomprehensible.

I didn't feel an emotional connection to this film at all - I don't see it as "Clint's masterpiece" at all - "Mystic River" is a far superior film, which had me extremely emotionally involved. The Morgan Freeman voice-over really got on my nerves very early on. I am not a fan of voice-over - I believe it's an easy way out of explaining things rather than SHOWING them.

I can't understand all the hype about MDB - I really can't. I give it (a very generous) 7 out of 10.

Troy (2004)

ONE OF THE WORST FILMS I HAVE SEEN IN A LONG TIME

[4/10 · 14 June 2004]

This movie is so bad that I kept looking for the little guys at the bottom of the screen, for I was sure I was watching an episode of "Mystery Science Theatre 3000".

I cannot begin to describe everything that is wrong with this film. Others have already done so many times over. Please read Roger Ebert's review - he nails it on the head but is still much too kind. This movie is boring, too long, and has virtually no redeeming qualities.

I NEVER walk out of movies, no matter how bad they are. Last night, while watching "Troy", I was tempted. In fact, the desperation, confusion, and uncertainty in my trying to decide whether to leave at about the 45-minute mark was more moving and involving than anything in the film! Alas, I stayed, and hence lost 2:40 of my life and $7 of my money (I used a pass).

Never mind whether ancient Greeks should be introspective (although if you believe in anything Julian Jaynes said, they probably even COULDN'T do so), this entire production was a waste of time. I can't even imagine anyone watching the dailies and thinking, "yes, that's good". This movie makes "Gladiator" look like the best movie ever made, simply because it succeeded in bringing an ancient civilization to life. After watching "Troy", you will have no clue as to what life was like in ancient Greece.

Brad Pitt and Eric Bana do a decent job with what they are given. The young woman playing Achilles' Trojan "love-slave" (I forget her name) gives perhaps the only really great performance in this movie. Peter O'Toole thinks that going bug-eyed somehow conveys some emotion, and Julie Christie is virtually unrecognizable. The woman playing Helen of Troy is not nearly beautiful enough and is a terrible actress.

Save your money. Save your time. PLEASE - you are now warned as I was not fortunate enough to be. Rating: 4 out of 10.

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

Lots of homages to other films...

[7/10 · 11 June 2004]

Instead of reviewing this movie, I thought I'd mention that it is chock full of scenes featuring homages to previous films. For some reason, none of these are listed in the "Movie Connections" section of iMDB. Here are the ones I noticed (*** possible spoilers ***):

"Close Encounters..." - floor cleaner opening door with bright light behind it

"Titanic" - going downstairs to use the payphone in a flooded hallway

"Poseidon Adventure" - guy hanging into shopping mall and ultimately falling

"Planet of the Apes" - top half of Statue of Liberty sticking out of the ground

"The Matrix" - jumping over the crack in the ice in Antarctica

"Twister" - tornado scenes in Los Angeles

"The Perfect Storm" - shot of wave approaching Manhattan

The Yearling (1946)

Jane Wyman steals the show...

[6/10 · 20 February 2004]

"The Yearling", an adaptation of the Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings novel about a Florida family in the 1800s, is a fairly well-made family film that suffers mostly from bad acting and a slow plot.

Jane Wyman, as the mother, blows every one else off the screen. You can see why she would go on to win the Oscar only a couple of years later for a non-speaking role in "Johnny Belinda".

Gregory Peck, an excellent actor otherwise, is out of his league, poorly attempting a southern accent while trying to play the staid father.

The worst acting of all comes from Claude Jarman Jr. who portrays the young Jody as if he were acting in a silent film. Less is more, Claude. He thankfully retired from acting about 10 years later, after as many films.

The cinematography is beautiful, and worthy of the awards it won.

Overall, I give this film 6 out of 10 - thumbs down, except for fans of Jane Wyman.

Whale Rider (2002)

Cliched and disappointing...

[5/10 · 28 September 2003]

I had high expectations for this film, mostly from the glowing reviews and a position in the iMDB's Top 250 films of all time. I must admit that the subject matter didn't interest me, however. In fact, the presence of the aborigine New Zealanders was one of the disappointing things to me about the movie "The Piano" (which I otherwise loved).

I saw it last night with a friend - he loved it, I did not. To me, it was very very slow moving; a simple plot told in typical movie cliches, with mostly cardboard characters, and except for Keisha Castle-Hughes (who is truly excellent in her part), acting that did not convince me at all. About 10 minutes into the movie, I could predict exactly what would happen.

The movie picks up about 3/4 of the way through with the first appearance of whales, and the ending is quite satisfying.

My friend, who has an extensive background and knowledge of Native Americans, appreciated the movie for its honest portrayal of another culture. I would expect that unless you have this kind of background, you won't like this movie (although from others' comments here, I guess that's not the case). Here in Los Angeles, there were actual Maori people in the audience who were crying throughout the entire movie. I guess they felt a strong emotional connection.

That was my problem exactly, however - I felt no emotional connection to the characters or the story at all. So I was just watching a movie with a plot that I've seen before (kind of like The Karate Kid III meets Rabbit Proof Fence) that could not hold my interest.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Winged Migration (2001)

A great, misunderstood film

[10/10 · 10 August 2003]

Funny how I only want to write iMDB comments after reading some of the inane things that other people have said about a movie.

Anyway, let's clear up the record as far as "Winged Migration" goes (spoilers ahead?):

1. Yes, the film has some flaws - I agree that the soundtrack is far too Charlotte Church meets Celine Dion meets The Cranberries and far too little of New Age meets Phillip Glass.

2. Yes, some of the scenes were probably staged for dramatic effect - but those scenes were to keep your interest up - otherwise you'd just be watching flying for 90 minutes and your attention would lapse even though the photography is breathtaking.

3. "There were no special effects in filming the birds" - what they meant was in "filming the up-close flying of the birds" - in other words, all the birds you see are real - none of them are computer generated (CGI). That doesn't mean that the space shots of the earth from thousands of feet in the air were real - of course those were computer generated. But no bird was a cousin to Jar Jar Binks or The Hulk.

4. The narration was, at times, hard to understand. I assume that in France, where the film was made, the narration was probably in French.

5. This was not a film to "teach you about birds". That being said, if the information given in this film is not enough for you, go read a book. That's not the point of the film. Did you ever hear of the phrase, "A picture is worth a thousand words?"

6. Possibly the scenes with the bird whose foot got caught in a net were edited cleverly for dramatic purposes, but perhaps not - remember that the SAME birds come back to the SAME places year after year. They probably stop in exactly the SAME SPOTS too. Why wouldn't they?

7. In order to get the close up footage of the birds, I heard that they had to raise them from birth so that they would be used to close-flying planes and close-up human contact. That fact doesn't deter from the film at all, in my book. They are still birds that migrate back and forth from/to all points. And I can't believe every bird shown in the film was raised from birth - if so, the filmmakers deserve some kind of award for that!

8. Crabs are mean. Besides being "shifty eyed" and walking sideways, they will kill and eat a wounded bird. I no longer feel guilty for eating them in crabcakes or hard shelled in Maryland. OK I just threw this comment in for comic effect. Otherwise, you may have been bored with my previous 7 points.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

An extremely disappointing sequel...

[5/10 · 23 June 2003]

I loved The Matrix. I have it on tape at home and have seen it many times. It holds up extremely well and all the logic is consistent within itself (in other words, nothing happens in the film that can't be explained within the context of the rules of the film). It was clever and witty and funny at times and filled with great action.

Now we get "The Matrix Reloaded", an extremely disappointing sequel.

Before we get to the bad, let's examine the good (some contain spoilers):

• I liked the fight scene with the clones- well done

• The woman who leads them to the Keymaker was very interesting and well-acted

Here are my complaints (some contain spoilers):

• the film has no sense of humor; no attempts at jokes were made until the last half of the film

• the action scenes were overdone; most of the action scenes looked like they came right out of a James Bond movie

• the extreme powers of Neo in this film take away all suspense - if he can win any fight, then what is there for us to cheer for?

• the fight with the clones should have happened near the end - that's the ultimate fight that would create suspense; after this fight, it's obvious that Neo can beat anyone in a fist fight

• if it's the year 2999 and they know that the only way to beat the agents is to blow them up, why don't they make some kind of bomb instead of relying on cars blowing up?

• one of the best parts of the original Matrix was the Oracle; now we find out that she wasn't even a real person? How disappointing...

• the supporting characters were fairly boring and the acting not very good; the original had much better acting by the supporting characters; for example, The Keymaker had absolutely no reactions while on the back of Trinity's motorcycle even though she was dodging cars the whole time

No, I didn't stay for the trailer for part 3 - at this point, the next part of the sequel is not on my "to see" list.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

The worst movie I have seen this year...

[8/10 · 17 February 2003]

I was really looking forward to The Two Towers. I thought that "Fellowship of the Ring" was good, but just so-so. Certainly not worth all the hype and Oscar nominations.

This film bored me to tears for the first 2 hours. The last hour was good - if only the rest of the film could have been as interesting. I literally almost walked out of the theatre during the first two hours - and I NEVER walk out on movies.

I can't believe it was nominated for Best Picture this year. I can't believe that everyone who voted for it actually SAT THROUGH it! No way!

Yes, the cinematography, sound, and other technical aspects are all top notch. But that doesn't make up for the flaws, namely:

• lack of a plot - or at least an understandable plot

• lack of a reprise (however briefly) of what happened in the first movie to remind stupid people like me where we are in the story. I couldn't follow what was going on.

• way too too too long

• many elements seemed stolen from other films - perhaps they were visualized as they were in the book, but since I haven't read the book I don't know. Moving trees like in "Wizard of Oz". Gollum is the same as Dobby from "Harry Potter". The dwarf with the height problem is really identical to Hagrid from same "Harry Potter". Even the big elephants reminded me of the huge walking things from "The Empire Strikes Back."

If you want to see beautiful footage of New Zealand, watch the Travel Channel.

The ONLY saving grace out of this whole movie was Sean Astin, whom, as in the first one, is the only one who seems to be really emoting and who seems to understand what he is saying. He is a great actor.

I want my 3 hours back!!!

Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002)

Don't confuse the message with the medium

[7/10 · 6 January 2003]

After hearing raves about this film, I was anxious to see it. However, after seeing it, I think people who are raving about it are confusing the message with the medium.

Yes, the message and history of the film is powerful and it's a story that needs to be told.

No, the medium meaning this particular film is not as good as it could have been.

Just because a subject matter is important and powerful doesn't mean the movie telling the story is good.

SPOILERS ALERT!

The story is basically three Aborigine girls, taken away from home, walk the long journey back home. A master searcher looks for them along the way. Kenneth Branagh plays Neville, the head of the Australian government office that "controlled" the Aborigines.

In this film you've got basically three scenes - presented over and over again until there's nothing more to say:

1. Girls are walking 2. Searcher is looking for them 3. Neville is angry

4. Girls are walking 5. Searcher is looking for them 6. Neville is angry

7. Girls are walking and come upon a nice person who gives them food 8. Searcher is looking for them and thinks he spots them but doesn't say anything 9. Neville is angry

I think we needed more - introduce the girls better - tell how each one is unique - without knowing them it's hard to care what happens to them (except as an overall reaction to racism against their people).

Make it more obvious that the walk was a HUGE struggle. Until 2 of the girls passed out, they didn't seem to have a difficult time walking 800 miles, finding food and water, and basically staying sane.

Showing the real women at the end was good and touching but certainly not tear-jerking.

Overall I still give it 7 out of 10 because I think people need to know what happened in 1931 in Australia.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Not as great as I was led to believe...

[9/10 · 12 February 2002]

Perhaps I'm in the minority... OK, yes, I am definitely in the minority, but I just saw "Lord of the Rings" yesterday and am still wondering what all the fuss is about?

Yes, the movie is technically brilliant, from special effects, to art direction, to cinematography. But the story didn't move me at all.

I admit I am NOT a fan of fantasy - "Star Wars" left me similarly unmoved. But to say that "Lord..." is one of the greatest movies of all time is confusing to me. And it's not just IMDB voters but movie critics alike.

One thing I noticed in the film (and since I have not read the book except for "The Hobbit" I don't know if this is similar) is a lot of homoeroticism. I wonder if I'm just reading something into it or was my mind wandering so much that I had to think of subtext, or what?

Did anyone else notice this? From the opening "smoke rings" sequence (Gandolf's smoke boat goes into Bilbo's smoke ring) to the lack of female characters, to the womb-like "evil eye", to men convincing other men to stay with the men and not go with the women...

Anyway, I give the movie 7 out of 10 stars (normally I'd give it 8 but it's overrated here so it needs a bit of reality).

Gosford Park (2001)

Classic Altman

[9/10 · 3 February 2002]

I don't usually comment but after reading the long list of negative reviews, I feel I must. "Gosford Park" is an intelligent character study of both the "upstairs" and the "downstairs" in an English manor. The fact that a murder is committed during the film is only incidental. In fact, as several people have stated, I also didn't care whodunit... that would miss the point of this film.

To compare it unfavorably to "Clue", a ridiculously bad film, is both insulting and misleading. If you want a murder mystery, go see something else. If you want a cleverly drawn British comedy with true heart and sentiment, then see "Gosford Park". If you can't understand the accents, perhaps you should focus your attention better. I admit at first I had a hard time hearing several characters. But after redirecting my attention towards understanding them, I had no trouble.

I admit to being a huge fan of Robert Altman - he has an incredible way of presenting "slice of life" films with multiple multiple characters and in "Gosford Park" he does not disappoint.

Ali (2001)

Not the greatest movie about The Greatest, but pretty damn good.

[7/10 · 30 December 2001]

Just a few comments to balance out what others have said:

Will Smith already proved in "Six Degrees of Separation" that he CAN act. He was very good here. Not Oscar-worthy in my opinion, but a very good job nonetheless. More impressive for me were Jamie Foxx (who also impressed me a lot in "Any Given Sunday") and Nona Gaye (who I didn't know had any acting talent at all - but I guess she does).

This movie, like a lot of Michael Mann films, sets a tone, an atmosphere, and goes with it. That's the reason for overlong scenes like the opening nightclub scene and the jog in Zaire. Tell me that after the opening scene, you didn't get a great feel for the 60's - the period in which most of this movie takes place.

I will defend the jog in Zaire scene too - Roger Ebert even complained that it went on too long. But during the scene, I was thinking lots of things - "I wonder what Ali is thinking?" "I guess he's thinking of how different his life is than these poor people. He's thinking how much of a hero he has become to people he doesn't even know. How much responsibility he has to win the fight because these people all support him. How Africa is his peoples' homeland and how he's basically come home." All those thoughts went through my head and I think that's exactly what Michael Mann intended. The scene NEEDED to run on and on to convey all those different thoughts and ideas.

At the end, I admit I was a little disappointed because I had hoped the film would cover more of Ali's recent life including battling Parkinson's disease. But I guess that's for Ali 2.

The Majestic (2001)

A majestic disappointment...

[6/10 · 24 December 2001]

Boy was I looking forward to this movie. Not just because I am a fan of Frank Darabont's previous films "The Green Mile" and "The Shawshank Redemption", but also because it was the first film in which I was an extra. I played one of the actors in convict uniforms in the studio scene at the beginning of the film. Unfortunately I am not visible in the scene (although all 4 of the other convicts I worked with ARE). The other two scenes we filmed at the studio were cut out of the film.

And that, I think, is part of the problem. This story needed more development at the beginning - it was too quick before the accident - we needed time to get to know the Jim Carrey character and appreciate who he was before everything happens. We also need more time to understand the problem he has and to let the seriousness of the issue sink in before moving on. That would help justify the movie's concluding scenes better.

If anything should have been cut, it's the very very slow moving middle of the film. This film makes "The Straight Story" look like "Gone in 60 Seconds" - that's how terribly slow it is. I even got up to use the bathroom at one point - something I NEVER do in movies.

The acting is passable but I expected more. While we were filming, Mr. Darabont would insist on many, many takes - as many as 25 for the outdoor studio scene. Jim Carrey said that this method of filming gives you "nuances" in performances that you don't get from just one take. I disagree. I think when you have that many takes, you get actors that are not willing to commit to "give it their all" because they know there will be another 20 takes to come (or because there have just been a previous 20 takes earlier and they are tired). And this shows clearly in the acting here.

I don't know whether to fault the script, the direction, or the acting-- I think it's a combination of all three. This movie simply does not work as a whole.

Rating - 6 out of 10.

The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)

Just a few points...

[7/10 · 13 December 2001]

I'm commenting only to make a few points about this film...

1. Jon Polito's performance (as the guy with the business idea) "blew me away". I must say this because I haven't heard anyone else say it.

2. Not only was the Cinematography in black and white superb, but the Art Direction (set decoration) and Makeup impeccable.

3. The Coen Brothers, after the huge success of "Fargo", could have turned around and made Fargo 2, 3, and 4, but they haven't. They are truly dedicated to the craft of making movies, not making money. For that alone, I have the most respect.

Charlie's Angels (2000)

Not as bad as I thought it would be...

[7/10 · 9 December 2001]

Didn't see this film when it came out because it didn't appeal to me at first - but just watched it on cable. Now I am VERY critical of most movies and it takes a lot to please me. That being said, this wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.

Actually it was kind of cute. The best parts were in the first half, when the girls were dressing up in all kinds of different costumes and going "undercover" to scout out the crime and criminals. Then unfortunately the movie turned into Jane Bond and went way over the top. The first half is very true to the TV series and the second half isn't. Other complaints are the presence of Tom Green (not just in the movie but basically on planet Earth) and the stupid Matrix-Crouching Tiger fight scenes. But those fight scenes were required in every movie in the year 2000, I think - and now that the 3 Musketeers remake with those fight scenes bombed - we have a reprieve for a while. Phew!

Overall, 7 out of 10 rating.

The African Queen (1951)

Not as good as I remembered it...

[7/10 · 6 March 2001]

I recently re-watched the classic "The African Queen" on AMC. I remembered it fondly from my youth as a great movie featuring a lady and a cantankerous sailor who set out down a river in Africa, and *** SPOILER NOTICE *** eventually warm to each other.

The movie does not quite stand up to my memories of it. Much of it is quite dated, and many of the scenes featuring Bogart and/or Hepburn in front of a backdrop (onto which is projected film of the water) are embarrassingly flawed. Perhaps within a budget in 1951, that was the best they could do, but a constant mix of scenes where Bogart and Hepburn are in a REAL boat in REAL water makes these inserted scenes look silly. The movie "Titanic", made a mere 2 years later in 1953, had none of these technical problems.

In addition, the characters were not as argumentative as I remember them. Without much conflict about one-third into the movie, there's not much place for this movie to go, except, literally, down the river.

However, all that being said, it's still one of Bogart's best performances, his only Oscar, and is somehow still worth viewing. Rating: 7 out of 10.

A Christmas Story (1983)

I must be from another planet, because I don't understand...

[2/10 · 4 February 2001]

why this movie is so acclaimed by the voters on iMDB. A friend bought me the tape of this movie for Christmas, and I had never seen it. I just got around to watching it, and it is definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I do like good Christmas movies, however - The Bishop's Wife and the recent remake, The Preacher's Wife immediately come to mind - but this is nowhere near those.

The ONLY redeeming value in this movie is Melinda Dillon's performance - she is always good - and she acts everyone off the screen. My complaints are numerous, but most importantly, this movie has NO PLOT and NO CONFLICT! There is nothing to keep you interested - I want my hour and a half back! What a waste of celluloid. This movie is sickenly sweet without EARNING the right to that sweetness - like "Home Alone" and others in the same genre do.

The scene where the kid has his mouth "washed out with soap" is a kick in the face to anyone who ever had this done for real. Pardon me, but sticking a bar of soap in the kid's mouth isn't quite cutting it. Also the scene where the kid is bullied and teased is also quite tame compared to the real thing. Movies like this really undermine the struggles of those people who had REAL problems as children.

The parents are entirely too old to have children that young, though most movies back in the 30's and 40's DID have parents that were too old. The main character is 9 years old but still believes in Santa Claus?

Again I'm back to the lack of conflict. Let's see, the kid wants a certain toy for Christmas and may or may not get it. That ranks right up there with "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" - sorry for the sarcasm. Oh yes, and there's a scene where the husband gets a lamp that the wife doesn't like.

Bottom line - this stinker doesn't deserve the 2 out of 10 rating I gave it and I'm getting rid of it on eBay as soon as I can.

The Red Violin (1998)

Interesting... to say the least...

[8/10 · 21 January 2001]

Hmmm... Let's watch "The Red Violin" - the movie that came out of nowhere and won the Best Score Oscar a couple of years ago.

OK - typical story of an object through the years... but wait... it's told in a unique fashion - with clips of various timeframes - now and then - sort of like The English Patient - and it works.

This movie is much better than I thought - held my interest - each of the stories is interesting, and tied together nicely by the tarot card reader. The music, of course, is outstanding.

Why didn't this movie get a wider distribution? Why did it surprise me at the Oscars when it won Best Score? Why had I never heard of it until then? You tell me.

Rating: 8/10 stars.

Full of Life (1956)

Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen...

[2/10 · 17 January 2001]

After enjoying the incomparable Judy Holliday in the musical classic "Bells are Ringing", I was looking forward to seeing her talents in "Full of Life" - a movie that TV Guide gave 3 stars out of 4 and called a "comedy".

This is quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. It was painful to sit through. It's not a comedy by any stretch of the imagination. There are only a few (that's exactly three) mild chuckles in the entire film.

The incredible comic genius of Judy Holliday is completely wasted here. Approaching her 9th month of pregnancy, she respectively smokes, lifts heavy objects, drinks, and flies in an airplane. The Italian relatives in this film are nothing but stereotypes.

The only possibly redeeming value that this movie has (and this is quite a stretch and does not really redeem the movie nor make it any more worth watching) is the slightly advanced thinking in the script that makes Judy's character a scientist (not "just a housewife") and that includes a respectful examination of the meaning that religion has in a marriage. These ideas are quite advanced for a movie from 1956 that claims to be a comedy.

I admit that sometimes one's mood while watching a movie can affect one's opinion of that movie. I accept that "Toy Story 2" (which I also rated as "poor") may not have been as bad as I said it was, considering that I was in a very bad mood while watching it and didn't really want to be there.

That being said, I could win $10,000,000 in the lottery, be jumping for joy, and "Full of Life" would still be a stinker.

Anywhere But Here (1999)

Not just worse than "Tumbleweeds", but one of the worst movies of 1999

[5/10 · 7 January 2001]

I'm glad I waited to see this on cable. I had heard it was "not as good" as "Tumbleweeds", which essentially tells the same story. I rented "Tumbleweeds" last year and loved it. "Anywhere But Here" is too long, lacks a direct plot, and not even the good acting can save it. Halfway through I picked up a magazine and periodically glanced at the movie between pages - and I didn't miss anything.

The bad points: - the plot was meandering and overall the movie was too long

• the use of flashbacks to transition scenes instead of to give us new information (example - after telling us that Adele bought the Mercedes for the trip, we flashback to.... you guessed it, Adele buying the Mercedes... for the trip!)

• Bonnie Bedelia is totally wasted in her miniscule role

The good points: - Natalie Portman perfectly underplays her role and thereby gives it much emotional depth

• Susan Sarandon does the best she can (I am a big fan of hers) with a terribly-written role.

So, my advice is.... SEE TUMBLEWEEDS!