Reviews written by registered user
|26 reviews in total|
I am a big fan of the original Prisoner. This is not a remake or a reboot; it is more of an homage. There are many familiar elements from the original series, but the tone, style, and rationale are not the same. It is initially quite confusing, but eventually coalesces into something quite interesting. As others have pointed out, some of the dialogue is pretty bad (and sometimes under-recorded and practically unintelligible), and Caviezel's "Six" is quite different from McGoohan's Number Six. In the end, while nowhere near as deep or as good as the original, it is a worthwhile miniseries which does raise some very interesting points. Be seeing you!
Up until I saw this at age 10 or 11, I thought virtually everything I saw on TV was a fantasy that had no connection whatsoever to real life. Seeing The Glass Menagerie for the first time was a shock. Obviously, I can't be sure, but my recollection of the production was that it was perfect (unlike the 70s TV version with Katharine Hepburn and Michael Moriarty). Seeing it started a long involvement for me with theatre and began my search for quality television. It is my #1 "want" to see again; the last time I looked for it at the Museum of Television (several years ago), they didn't even have it. At least it is finally listed here on IMDb, for which I am thankful.
This may be the worst TV show ever to make it into a network prime-time slot. It was juvenile, dumb, and just plain not funny. Horny Abe?? A sarcastic black butler??? What were they thinking?????? I honestly think I'd rather sit through a Love Boat marathon than see this wretched refuse again, which is saying quite a lot. I'd love to give it a zero, but you can't--so I'm giving it one star apiece for Chi McBride (Pushing Daisies, Boston Public) and Dann Florek (Law & Order, L.A. Law). They deserved--and got--much better than this. I think this ended the production careers of the creators, and deservedly so. If you really must see it, I think it's on YouTube. But...please don't.
This is probably the most excruciatingly boring film I've ever seen. I saw the American premiere at the New York Film Festival, and its 82 minutes seemed like an eternity in the dentist's chair--the one played by Laurence Olivier in Marathon Man. I was one of the many people who booed loudly at the end. One of my companions didn't boo--he was still asleep, lucky guy. The plot? All I remember is that it seems to be an audition for a musical, with an endless parade of women performing the same lines/songs/dances over and over and over. The greatly flawed film version of A Chorus Line is a masterpiece compared to this snooze-fest. You'd have to pay me to see another Chantal Akerman movie.
All I have to say is...this is the funniest movie I've ever seen. There have been a few times when I've come close to passing out from laughter while watching a movie, but never more than once per movie. Except for this one. Too bad Dwain Esper didn't actually set out to make a comedy--this would be considered a classic, up there with Chaplin, Keaton, and Laurel and Hardy. Believe me, you're not throwing away your money if you rent or buy this...unless you're expecting a hard-hitting horror film. This film's a horror, all right, but of an entirely different kind. Now I need to go out and see all of Esper's other masterpieces.
This is an excellent film mainly marred by only one thing: Keanu
Reeves. My jaw drops when I read the praise and even faint praise he's
getting for this role. Don John is supposed to be a **comic** villain!
This is the only time I have ever seen him not played as such. Even if
it was Branagh's (bad) choice for Reeves to play him as straight-up
evil, he is unbelievable in the role. Add this to his
semi-Shakespearean performance in My Own Private Idaho, and I come to
the conclusion that Keanu Reeves should be banned from ever performing
Michael Keaton's performance is pretty weird, but at least he's in the right frame of mind. Everything else about the film is wonderful, and this is surely one of the best film adaptations of Shakespeare.
There are very few individual episodes of TV shows from this era that I remember, but this one stands out: an absolutely brilliant and chilling story of how an error in a man's credit history ruins his life. I haven't seen this for 35 years, but I can still remember the great performances of Burl Ives and Darren McGavin and the very realistic, very frightening ending. This was way ahead of its time and is probably even more relevant in 2007 than it was in 1971. Alexander Singer won an Emmy for directing this episode, and the writers were nominated for the WGA award. The Bold Ones itself was an excellent series--I wish it were available on video.
...because if it were more widely distributed, more people would
be aware of
the shattering effects of poverty and the dilemmas of the "working poor"
the USA. We can't have that, can we?
The film, as others have said, is a gripping and sad picture of a decline into destitution. Mare Winningham is terrific.
Warm In The Bud is a low-budget adaptation of Frank Wedekind's "Spring Awakening", an expressionistic German view of adolescent sexuality which was written around 1895 and was decades ahead of its time (it had a successful revival at the NY Shakespeare Festival in the 1980s). I wish the film were available on video.
I concur with "Mr. Pants". This is indeed one of the most depressing views of the USA ever filmed, but it is fascinating. The final scene, incidentally, takes place not at a roadside carnival, but in possibly the tackiest, saddest tourist trap in America: Cherokee, North Carolina.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |