Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
"Talking heads" documentary about the Cannes Film Festival
1 June 2007
This meandering documentary about the Cannes Film Festival, made by Time's film critic Richard Schickel, consists almost exclusively of anecdotes and interviews with directors, some actors, and (naturelment) a lot of critics. Though this makes the film visually quite dull, some of the stories are interesting, and you do get a sense of Cannes' past glory as the first truly international film marketplace.

But whatever charm the festival had in its heyday could not survive its own success, and today the "festival" seems like a preview of some hedonist's outer circle of Hell -- most enjoyable from a continent's remove, at least.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Like a Lesser, Colorized Remake
28 May 2007
Made only two years later, this plays like a pale (albeit colorized) remake of Sands of Iwo Jima (1949). Not only does it have the same star (Wayne) playing essentially the same tough-as-nails Marine sergeant character, it also has the same screenwriter (James Edward Grant).

Though this film was directed by Nicholas Ray, it has none of his characteristic directorial excesses. It feels much more like a (lesser) Howard Hawks film. The use of color in the battle sequences must have seemed to 1951 audiences like a step forward in gory realism, but they are not that impressive by today's standard.

The film benefits from a very good second-lead performance by Robert Ryan, who plays the more humane foil to Wayne's hard-bitten taskmaster. On the other hand, Jay C. Flippen more than exhausts his welcome as the stock comedy relief.

An OK Duke/WW2 picture -- worth seeing once. But by all means, see Sands of Iwo Jima and They Were Expendable first.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Surprisingly low-key and effective hostage drama
22 May 2007
And you thought your last vacation was bad! This modest 1987 made-for-TV docudrama, starring Lindsay Wagner as flight attendant Uli Derickson, does a surprisingly good job of depicting a 1985 Arab hijacking without too much of the expected overdone histrionics or Rambo-esquire heroics. The writing carefully and sensibly sticks to Derickson's perspective. This is certainly one of Wagner's best roles; she is affecting, again without being overly glamorized.

If this all has something of a Reader's Digest Drama-in-Real-Life feel to it, that goes with the territory. No great contribution to world cinema, but well done.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Out of Sight (1998)
10/10
Clooney and Lopez strike sparks in Superior Hollywood Caper/Romance
18 May 2007
This is as good a "movie movie" as has come out of Hollywood in the last ten years. The story is fresh and makes sense, the supporting cast (especially Don Cheadle and Albert Brooks) is exceptional, and the excellent dialog maintains Elmore Leonard's unmistakable 'pop'. Best of all, Clooney and Lopez have genuine sexual/romantic chemistry together.

A minor box-office disappointment when it came out, this very underrated film was nevertheless the one that made Clooney a genuine movie star. Special mention should go out to screenwriter Scott Frank, who also did a masterful job of adapting Leonard's Get Shorty. (It only looks easy -- witness, for example, the execrable Be Cool.) Kudos also to director Steven Soderbergh, who showed a previously unsuspected knack for delivering a well-made star-driven commercial entertainment without condescending to the supposed stupidity of the mass audience. Soderbergh quickly went on to cement his reputation with a string of commercial and artistic hits: Erin Brockovich (2000), Traffic (2000), and Ocean's Eleven (2001).

This is the sort of movie that Howard Hawks or Michael Curtiz might have directed if they'd been born 50 years later. And I do mean that as high praise.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
So bad it's... No, wait, it's just bad. SPOILERS!
4 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This 60s family comedy has a couple of things going for it -- a solid cast of game, familiar faces; and a memorably colorful home set, somewhat reminiscent of "The Jetsons".

More than offsetting these strengths are some truly mind-boggling debit items. Here are a few, taken at random.

* The soundtrack, which underlines the never-funny gags in VERY broad strokes. Something allegedly amusing happens; then, like a "comedy alert" signal, the squawk goes out: "Kwaah-KWAAH!"

* The songs, which are not only very terrible -- they are also very catchy. And they remain catchy when they are replayed. And replayed! With immortal, un-killable lyrics like, "G;ub, glub, glub! / I'm floating on a sea of love!" and "Hey, little goldfish, we could have a whale of a time. / So put your fin in mine."

* Perhaps the most insipid overuse of "groovy" slang ever committed to celluloid. Listen closely to hear Richard Dreyfuss ejaculate, "It's the berries!"

* The wide range of communication techniques with the underwater house. At one end of the convenience scale is Jim Backus's one-button microphone, which is piped, on a two-way hookup, directly into Tony Randall's bedroom. At the other is the plucky, tippling housekeeper (Charlotte Rae), who must take a solo motorboat to somewhere well offshore, and then hope for the arrival of some homing dolphins to carry her handwritten message.

* The washing machine, which apparently has an ejector cycle that repeatedly and violently regurgitates sopping-wet clothing, mainly in the direction of (ha, ha) people's backsides!

There are at least four plots, none of which make any sense. First, there is Janet Leigh's reaction to living underwater. One minute she is adamant she will never ever do it; the next, she's a purring bundle of sexy-compliant middle-aged domestic bliss. Then something goes wrong, and she's out of there! No, wait, she'll stay -- but NO SEX! Or as she memorably puts it, "No glub glub glub!" (I could make a joke -- but let's not go down there.) Quick, if the four teens can just pin her down for just a second, maybe Tony could inject the lithium!

Second, there is the plot of the rival undersea project, headed by the scheming... Ken Berry?? It aims to dredge the sea floor for the vast quantities of "gold, uranium, and magnesium" that must surely lie there. (Did he really say 'magnesium'?) This is all just a setup for some very weak gags, and one of the most unconvincing "special effects" this side of an Ed Wood film -- a torrent of water and sand cascading down, and sometimes diagonally, onto poor Ken Berry. We have been shown this machine in action -- a well controlled conveyor belt, carrying maybe two inches worth of sand at something near waist level. So how is it that all this sand is suddenly streaming down from overhead? And sometimes diagonally? Tony manages to heroically save Ken's life, and nobody ever asks about what became of Ken's little nebbishy sidekick.

Third, there is the underwater-Archies rock-and-roll band plot, about which the less said, the better. This leads inexorably to the fourth plot: The Navy's sonar keeps picking up the sound of the kids as they jam. Then, suddenly, inexplicably -- the noise stops! As the news of this marvel -- machines that make sound, that can be turned off! -- spreads up the Naval chain of command, the same "joke" scene is repeated, maybe six or seven times. "We don't have anything like this in OUR arsenal!" Finally the Navy gets so exercised about this phenomenon that it launches a full-scale invasion fleet, complete with battleships, aircraft carriers, and a handful of paratroopers (huh?) jumping into the water. With what result? Who can say? For here the film ends, or rather stops. Mercifully, the screenwriters chose to omit the final confrontation: the American Armada vs. the tag-team of Merv Griffin and Roddy McDowell (as Nate Ashbury, which rhymes with Haight-Ashbury -- get it?).

I left out the seal tricks, and the shark attack, and the song-hit-picking computer, and the sex-bomb who interprets its output by reading the receipt, but you get the idea. Sure, much of this was no doubt intended as some over-the-top self-parody of bad mid-60s sitcom humor. But, for goodness sakes, Gilligan's Island looks like Noel Coward next to this film. It may have some accidental value as an intelligence test for five-year-olds.

Ah, 1969... I guess you had to be there. Films like this made the "G" Rating box-office poison for at least a generation. If you watch it, you won't enjoy yourself, unless you have a Kobayashi-sized appetite for bad comedy. You will remember it, though. You've been warned.
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Pretty Bad
22 August 2006
James Agee wrote for The Nation:

I would like to be able to make "The Affairs of Susan" sound half as bad as it is, but I know when I'm licked. In this interminable film, which might be described as a Make's Progress, Joan Fontaine is photographed as Joan of Arc; the Maid looks as if she were testifying, for a handsome fee, to every nice thing the Voices told her about Lysol.

Miss Fontaine also appears as a lake-shore innocent, in trousers and a thinly knit jersey; in a series of gowns and negligees which are still more earnestly calculated to refute the canard that, if the Hays office permitted, she would be ashamed to make a clean breast of her "development" (I think the word is); and in a collection of horn-rims, tight hair, ties, and sharp tailoring which, if they suggest nothing admissibly human, may at least roughly approximate Mayor LaGuardia's mental image of "Trio".

Thihs sort of thing makes me all the angrier because Miss Fontaine has proved that she is an actress worth building a good picture around -- or even worth using in one that doesn't build around anyone.

About Dennis O'Keefe's characterization of a writer, I feel less kind. He achieves it purely by letting his hair get rather long behind the ears. In objecting to this, I am probably the only living writer who has to cast his stone through a glass house; and much as I loathe haircuts, I have been trying ever since I saw this picture to brace myself to enter a barber shop.
4 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Well mounted piece of sentimental hokum
12 August 2006
This glossy romantic melodrama has Ronald Colman as a WW I amnesia victim, and Greer Garson as his main love interest. I will not spoil your potential enjoyment by providing plot twists, except to say that the film-makers, starting with the book author James Hilton, are absolutely shameless. If you can get by the very high hokum factor, you can expect a pleasant time; if not, don't say I didn't warn you.

I concur with James Agee's contemporary review, in his very first film column for The Nation: "I would like to recommend Random Harvest to those who can stay interested in Ronald Colman's amnesia for two hours, and who could with pleasure eat a bowl of Yardley's shaving soap for breakfast."
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Boring...
1 July 2006
The first five questions (up to $1000) are ridiculously easy. They are a formality; hardly any contestant ever misses these. A waste of everyone's time.

The next five questions are somewhat more challenging, though still too easy for my taste. Earning $25000 is something of an achievement on any other show, but contestants of average ability do it regularly here.

The $50000 question is usually pretty good -- about as hard as a Jeopady! Daily Double.

Beyond that level, the questions suddenly get preposterously hard, to the point that virtually no contestant ever risks answering them.

I mean, what is the point?
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Handsome, faithful and well acted, and kind of dull
19 August 2005
This 1920 silent version of James Fenimore Cooper's story features a lot of nicely composed tableaux, which often illustrate the story as much as they tell it. It is well acted by most of the cast, with Wallace Beery and Harry Lorraine surprisingly convincing and non-stereotypical as, respectively, the Indian villain and hero. The female lead, Barbara Bedford, is quite pretty, and underplays a part where you would expect to see mass histrionics.

Overall, to be honest, this adaptation commanded my respect more than my interest.

5 stars out of 10
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Born to Love (1931)
2/10
Over-emotive waste of time
7 August 2005
I saw the last part of this on TCM; it was Joel McCrea day.

It didn't really fit -- this is Constance Bennett's movie, 100%, and that's the problem. This has to be one of the worst performances of her career. Even making allowances for 1931, she is very histrionic and melodramatic, in all the worst, most silent-movie-cliché ways.

Technically, Paul L. Stein's direction is fine (for 1931), but it appears from this he was not an "actor's director". Oddly, Ms. Bennett's next film, "The Common Law," re-teamed her with director Stein and costar McCrea. It is better; not memorable, but at least she isn't painfully bad in this one.
11 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed