Reviews written by registered user
suze-4

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
32 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Outstanding show that was totally underrated, 25 June 2017
10/10

Yes I watched this sometimes but I was 13 and I was overdue to see it again and appreciate it more now than I am nearly 70. Suddenly, ME TV has brought it back. I happened to see an episode with Martin Landau and I was utterly dumbfounded by its excellence. I was shocked to see the beautiful and young Shirley Knight as well (the mother in As Good As It Gets). The episode was about a time conundrum and it was gripping and heartbreaking.

The Outer Limits was at the time considered a gimmick, a Twilight Zone imitator, but I see clearly now 50 years later: it was not. Unlike the cynical, tongue in cheek typical Twilight Zone, this is dark and brooding and frightening. It is not a little half hour playlet; it is a one hour long drama, relentlessly upsetting, disturbing and uplifting all at the same time. I have set it to record all episodes now. They are just showing two per week on Saturdays.

I was dismayed to look it up just now and find it was cancelled in the middle of the second season because it didn't draw in viewers after it was moved to another day.

Great actors, great scripts, a noble TV show, totally underrated!

Dirty Dancing (2017) (TV)
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
This was awful, 25 May 2017
2/10

I don't know where to begin. I wish I hadn't watched this as it just taints the memory of the original.

The girl who plays Baby, though cute and charming, is graceless and talentless on the dance floor, as if they are trying to say a chubby, untalented girl can win a dance contest with enough lessons from a pro. The guy is fine, but in the original movie they were smoking hot together. One skilled dancer plus one chubby, awkward girl does not equal first prize material. That wasn't the meaning of the original at all. It wasn't about having pity for the girl. When the dad says in this version "I didn't know you could do that" it fell flat - do what? Dance horribly? So many remakes are embarrassments, ill conceived, and failures. This one goes to the very top of the list. Yes, it's worse than the remake of Psycho or any other you could think of.

Also they made it into a musical like Grease where the cast breaks into song all the time. Ew. This is not worth watching and I looked up other reviews which echo my view, including Variety. Plenty of critics had some choice words. Read those if you want to hear some harsh criticism which they try desperately to couch in politeness. There's no way to soften this - it's a horrible remake in every possible way. Spare yourself the discomfort and just skip it. I can't imagine anyone who loved Dirty Dancing in 1987 being able to watch and enjoy this without cringing and feeling dismayed at the way it was massacred.

One of my favourite movies of all time, 26 March 2017
10/10

If you haven't seen it, you are in for a treat. Don't read any spoilers, just see it. I've seen it several times and it never gets old. It is a fabulous movie and I don't want to ruin it by saying anything. I give it my highest rating which means it could not be improved.

Perfect casting, acting, plot, suspense, comedy, drama, music. Stunningly good. There are so many bland, offensive, or unwatchable comedies out there. This is not one of those. This is a masterpiece. It has tremendous heart.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Amazing series, 20 March 2017
10/10

I care about this subject matter because my father was involved in similar work in WW II. This is edge of your seat tension and drama and it brings WW II back so vividly, in a way that makes you feel for these characters and the peril the whole world was in at that time. I started with season 3 (my cable on demand only had that much) and am dismayed to hear that it was cancelled and there will be no season 4. Good news is that seasons 1 and 2 are out on DVD. Season 3 will surely follow in time (the finale was just last week). I can't recommend this highly enough. Previously my best series of all time was the Sopranos. This one moved me far more and is just as excellent as far as acting, scripts, sets, everything. Just watch any episode and you will be hooked and have to find out what happens. When I saw the very first episode after watching season 3, all my questions were answered about the way these five people were recruited. The way it introduces them is sublime. And yet you don't even need to start at the beginning to love this series. Jump in anywhere and you can follow along.

Absolutely ten out of ten stars because there's nothing better on TV.

Unfairly downgraded with the passing of time. It still holds up., 17 March 2017
9/10

Al Pacino deserved his Oscar for this role. Right on this page is a link to an article about Oscars that were "mistakes"and that includes this one. I just saw this again for the first time since I saw it in the theatre in 1992. It still moved me. This was not a sympathy Oscar. It was fully deserved. Pacino was brilliant and I am so fed up when I come across this kind of reassessment which implies that the entire Academy voted in some temporary trance. No. I am so tired of people saying this movie is only known for the "hu-ah." Hardly. How about actually watching it to the end. It's about morality and the human spirit. A blind, broken vet finding a common humanity and bonding with a young student who is hired to look after him. They both have something vital to offer to each other through the course of the few days they spend together. No, it's not a shoot-em-up western or a violent mafia bloodbath or a sci-fi CGI blockbuster. It's an old style human drama and you can't help loving the characters. If nothing else will make you want to watch it, you might enjoy seeing the very young Todd Louiso (High Fidelity) and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

The unbelievably bad acting and plot make it semi-fascinating, 18 April 2014
2/10

I just got the W movie channel and this is what they showed tonight. The listings said Contact with Jodie Foster was on. Instead, they showed this derivative, hackneyed, poorly acted and amateurishly written made-for-TV movie. Someone is clearly asleep at the channel, but I gave it a chance. It does have a plot that seems to be leading up to a violent encounter a la Single White Female. There is tension - who is going to get hurt or killed? Everything that is going to happen is telegraphed and obvious. I won't put any spoilers here, but it was watchable purely because of the hilariously bad (like a high school play) acting and the unbelievably overdone plot - haven't we seen a story like this about 1,000 times only without the plot fizzling out? PS I found out the name of it by typing in the keyword "roommate" in IMDb.

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
surprisingly touching and excellent adaptation, 18 February 2008
8/10

I didn't expect too much from a TV mini-series based on an adventure novel, which was later made into a big budget action film.

I had not enjoyed the 2002 version of The Bourne Identity with Matt Damon, but this one was gripping from the first frame. I read a lot of the reviews and posts here as I always do to compare reactions, and found people were praising some elements, and criticizing others. Here is how it affected me.

Primarily it was a story about a man's search for his identity, and Chamberlain, never known as the greatest actor in the world, was very believable and effective. Jaclyn Smith was just adequate in her role and she is definitely one of the worst actresses they could have chosen, but one can't have everything. She makes good eye candy. The movie's other characters played pivotal roles and delivered excellent characterizations. Notably Denholm Elliott as the doctor.

The story was a fast moving adventure, which was almost Hitchcockian, the story of one bewildered man with villains trying to kill him, and a random pretty girl he abducts to help him (also echoes of the Redford movie Three Days of the Condor), and the extensive scenery of Paris was beautiful. Except for the obvious pauses where commercials used to be, this looks like a real movie and not a TV series. It doesn't look cheaply made. They obviously took pride in this production.

But to me the most surprising thing of all was the human element, the complex emotions in the amnesiac's story. Richard Chamberlain delivered them far above what one would expect from him, or from a TV movie. Yet this movie is all but forgotten since the theatre versions were made. I think that Hitchcock, if he had been alive to make this picture, would himself have chosen Chamberlain as he was very much like the James Stewart "everyman" who raced against time to solve the mystery of his amnesia.

There are a few places where key scenes from the past are shown briefly and never explained (apparently a sequel was planned, which would explain them), and yet I was able to fill in a likely explanation, from my own imagination. This is the mark of good film making.

There were no fantastic special effects or avant garde techniques. It was straightforward story telling.

I am easily bored, highly critical, and so because I loved this, I am very surprised and had to post about it, in case it might help someone decide to go ahead and see it. Yes, it is well worth it and highly enjoyable. It hails from another era (where the story was more important than the chases and effects).

I am glad it is still available in video, and if I find it in DVD I will buy it because it was a movie I would like to see again. I still think about it - and went to the library to get the book the next day - and that rarely happens with an action movie of this type.

Thirteen at Dinner (1985) (TV)
15 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
underrated gem, 8 December 2007
7/10

For a TV movie this is surprisingly well done. Many twists and turns in the plot. Good characterizations by all the players.

I disagree with the negative comments here. The movie held my attention throughout and was a delight to watch. Faye Dunaway's portrayal of the dual roles was over the top but that was the nature of the two women she played. The actress Jane Wilkinson is clearly based on some of the mannerisms of Marilyn Monroe and Faye does this convincingly.

I didn't initially think Peter Ustinov would make a good Poirot, but he captures the detective's droll and determined persona and is quite convincing.

I wish they would make more movies like this. Though Peter and Faye are clearly the lead actors in it, there's an ensemble cast that works together to lead us on a merry chase of suspects. The locations are magnificent. All in all this is definitely worth watching even if it lacks the big budget of the ones Ustinov made for theatrical release.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
my highest rating, 15 September 2007
10/10

I used to rate every movie I saw from one to four stars, and I was very strict; four stars was the highest and it meant that: It surprised me more than once (it was not predictable); it had a wonderfully rich story; no plot holes or annoying gimmicks; good acting; no flaws; gripping; held my attention throughout, and I cried at the end, because it moved me so much. With this strictness, you can see that other "great movies" would not get 4 stars from me.

Well, I am not going to write any spoilers or any reasons why I loved this movie. Let me just say that I don't care that much about rating movies anymore and most of them disappoint me either totally or in part and would get, say, 2 and a half stars even for quite a good movie.

But this movie, it shocked me - for once the critics weren't wrong: it is great.

It fulfilled my strictest criteria, and I have given it my highest rating.

I am especially pleased at the many extras on the DVD which add to the richness of the presentation of this story.

Wonderful - wonderful movie.

42 out of 52 people found the following review useful:
almost a documentary on 1961 housing in California, 10 January 2007

Bob Hope was 58 and Lana Turner was 40 when they made this movie. They have no chemistry whatsoever so a romance is not believable. Perhaps with softened makeup and hair she would have been appealing. Anyway the story is beside the point now, 45 years later.

The movie is all about the huge, spacious, tract developments in undeveloped parts of California in 1961. I lived in one, so this movie takes me back there. Watching it takes me back to those days when Kennedy was the new president, when there were brand new houses in pale pink, light green, and yellow; each house divided from its neighbour by a row of cacti. Families moved to them from the older, two-story traditional houses. It was supposed to be a great thing to have no stairs; to live in a sprawling "rancher." Just looking at the houses with the huge kitchens and wall phones brings nostalgia, as only the very rich can afford space now; back then it was taken for granted.

A major "comedic" event in this film is Bob putting too much detergent in the washer, and the ensuing crisis when soap suds flood the entire house.

The houses were spacious and everything was inexpensive - such houses were $20,000 new. Nowadays any surviving houses from that era have been remodeled and no longer have the orange built-in bars, the gold appliances, or wood grained walls.

This is my parents' world, post-war - 16 years after the end of WW II. This is an era where everything is available, where the kitchen is the size of a restaurant, but there is no happiness whatsoever.

A scene in the supermarket is jarring when a little girl who had been left in the car by her mother is talking to Bob Hope and her mother comes along and just leaves her with him as she goes about her shopping. That would never happen now and reminds us of a more innocent and trusting time.

The development is called Paradise. It's more like Paradise Lost, or Discarded. There's a dark subplot of an unhappy marriage, a couple that is "practically divorced" and the wife (Janis Paige) is throwing herself at Bob Hope. But he's secretly a gentleman who only has eyes for the stiff, unmarried Lana Turner, and when he finally gets her, there is the obligatory panning across the floor showing their discarded clothing and then we hear her giggles. Just like a Rock Hudson/Doris Day ending.

Then the movie ends and I guess maybe we are meant to think they will have a real life together. They're too old to start having kids to populate the housing tract and be ignored and spoiled, so maybe they will write and think and discuss real things and have a happy life together.

The sixties are gone - but here in this movie we have the remnants of what it started out to be, if people could only have held on to it and preserved something for the future.

Who knew a fluff piece like this would be so thought provoking 40 years later.

I thank Turner Classics for realizing these are valuable period pieces that give us insight on a bygone age. An age where people lost the values they had in the 30s and 40s. After the war, people wanted comfort and ease, and wanted their kids to enjoy a carefree life without the privation of the depression and the war. Unfortunately it only shows that comfort and ease do not bring happiness.


Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]