Reviews written by registered user

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

41 out of 51 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.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
A comic book come to life, 5 October 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the last episode of season 4 so I sadly wait for seasons 5 and 6 to be released and then there are no more that will be "new".

First of all this one has good colour and film quality unlike many of the previous colour episodes (except for the grainy and scratched stock footage of the naval ships inserted at various points in the story).

The plot is absurd yet it's possible to get into it simply because they all play it straight. Jimmy and Lois, in peril again, tied up and blindfolded, only this time Clark Kent is among them. It's a comedy but it's not very funny - just surreal. Leonard Mudie is one of the main pirates - he was Brockhurst in the most frightening and memorable episode, A Ghost For Scotland Yard. Here he plays a slapstick role in elaborate Shakespearean style.

The problems that keep this just a comic book episode are in continuity and plot holes. We see several pretty young women and there is no explanation where they came from. If the pirates are part of a family descended from other pirates who landed 300 years ago, where are the older women who would be the mothers of these girls? And inexplicably, one of the young women makes eyes at Jimmy Olsen even though they were never introduced. I suppose several scenes were trimmed out since there is so much going on.

Superman has to pretend to be tied up and captive until no one is around and he can change into Superman, which provides some tension, but since we know it's a matter of time till he saves the day, there's really no fear. The story falls apart as the pirates and the two criminals meander around doing random things. The criminals have a vague plan to steal the plane and escape with some of the jewels but they dither around and it never happens.

Superman finally gets to rush to the naval ship and tell them not to shoot, but they think he has gone insane when he tells them there are pirates living on the island. So he has to go back and bring proof: a photo he makes Jimmy take, and develops into a negative using his x-ray vision. Yet he never delivers the negative to the ship; it's too late as they start bombing and he has to stop each bomb and blow it up in mid air. We aren't able to see this because there would be no possible special effect - so various characters talk about what he is doing. These are some of the problems with the story. Too many things going on and it doesn't all flow together or end with proper resolution. Why have the whole picture taking scene unless the photo is going to be delivered in time to stop the bombing? I still think it's a fun episode, but it kind of plays like a comic book fantasy. Despite that, our heroes remain in character and give it their all.

0 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Another absurd premise, 4 October 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is probably more implausible than any of the other outrageous scripts in this season. First of all, if Superman is frozen solid and chalky white, putting on Lois Lane's makeup (all over his face, neck, hands and hair!) would not make Clark look that natural. There would have to be some plausible reason why it would fool them. But this could only happen in a cartoon or a comic book. I just felt sorry for all of them having to act in this terrible story. This is not the real Superman series - the first two seasons are. Having said that, I still enjoyed the action and the danger. It's just that there is such a lack of subtlety or craftsmanship in these later episodes.

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
I'm afraid this one made me queasy, 4 October 2006

The upside down effect and the noise of the machine were absolutely nauseating which made this a hard episode to watch. Not to mention the invention made no sense at all. Compared to this I think I'd rather watch the episode with all the stolen bent knives, or the one with Chuck Connors and the mule. When the audio and visuals are both assaulting your senses, and the story is absurd, there is nothing else left but to ask "why did they do this?" This was probably the epitome of the show going downhill. It was 100% a kid's show by this point. Ah, what's the use in criticizing these later episodes - they too were made 50 years ago... how dare I nitpick? Well I'd like to go back in time and have some better episodes than these, that's all. They did not do justice to the great talent and charisma of George Reeves. He deserved better scripts than this.

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
I thought it was sweet, 4 October 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There are only 104 episodes. This is the only one where he calls her darling and she calls him dear, so why begrudge them? In every Superman movie and in the original comic book, there is some kind of romance between Superman and Lois Lane. It had to occur at least once in this series.

My problem with it was simply that there wasn't enough romance and there wasn't even a kiss. It was too austere. If you are going to have a dream for Lois, it should be a white wedding. What was the matter with a white gown and veil? It's not as if she had been married before, or was over 50.

The worst part was the end. It totally fell apart. In her dream, Superman had confessed that he was Clark Kent and told her she must never tell anyone else. Then she goes ahead and blurts out in front of two other people "aren't you Superman?" Nice going Lois.

Then she doesn't want to know who sent her flowers in real life just in case it isn't Superman or Clark. Whoa. It doesn't ring true.

Anyway it was stilted and fake, but let's be fair, it was Lois's dream. As dreams go it was not the worst one ever shown on TV. And at least they got to embrace.

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Sorry to say this one was terrible, 3 October 2006

I really could not fathom the premise of the knife collection, and the knife thefts. Even when it was explained it made no sense at all. It is like they reached the bottom of the barrel in their list of ideas for screenplays. Too bad! This is a very confused and convoluted story without any really satisfying conclusion and without enough tension. It's worth watching twice though, just to try to figure out what they were trying to do with the story line, but it is frustrating. Superman and Clark Kent hardly get a chance to shine in this one. After watching it twice I still can't give you a good plot outline that would make you want to see it. It's certainly one of the weaker episodes of the series, unfortunately.

I am sorry to have to compare it with the excellence of the many episodes that remained memorable to me more than 50 years after I saw them as a child. But maybe that alone proves that this one does not meet the standards they had in the beginning.

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