Reviews written by registered user
ChristianDiorScientist

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

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

38 reviews in total

Although the film's story-line is fiction, the facts of this low-key thriller are based on truth and provide a 'what if' scenario that keeps the viewer engaged. The director, Peter Yates, captured a style of filming and cinematography that makes it feel almost like an undiscovered Hitchcock film. Kelly McGillis is believable, although perhaps not quite the typical Hitchcock blonde, and Jeff Daniels may sound a bit too modern in some of his speech inflections, but Everything else about this film reeked of authenticity, from the genuine feel of the sets and authentic but real clothing, to the dialogue. I don't know why this film rated only a middlin score with viewers - perhaps they were expecting more of an action thriller,rather than the political intrigue style of thriller that it is.

This series is based on a fascinating book - it's the real-life story of American entrepreneur Harold Selfridge and the American-style department store he created in the middle of London a century ago. There are plenty of real-life stories to pull from for the series but they happened over a broad period of time. So far this series seems to be stuck in the first year, at least that's how it appears because most characters wear the exact same outfit in every scene. Even more distracting than that are the constant contemporary slip-ups, from Jeremy Piven's fluorescent white teeth and faceless mannequins, to women freely entering men's clubs, public kissing, and the use of words that weren't even in the English language yet like 'lipstick'. Why bother setting something in the past when its clear that the writers and director have no interest in recreating history other than for picture postcard purposes. Although based on fact, this series seems even more fake than Downton Abbey.

I came across a used DVD of this film a couple of days ago, and there is a fascinating interview with Val Guest in the special features. He explained the background, and why this film turned out the way it did. The producers couldn't use Flemings book, because parts had been used in all the other serious Bond flicks and all that was left was the Casino, Baccarat game, and Vespers' treachery - everything else was created for this film.

Four directors were hired to each do a segment, but they were hired by a time limit, not project, so many segments overlapped in filming, and were left unfinished by the directors, including John Huston's segment. On top of this, Peter Sellers and Orson Welles HATED each other, and Sellers pulled a 'I'm too sick to come in and I have a doctor's note" routine, so he was fired. In the end, there were unfinished shoots and incomplete parts, so Val Guest was hired to cobble everything together and create a thread of a plot line to unify the film and make some sense. Guest added a couple of scenes with the help of David Niven, Deborah Kerr, and Bill Holden, and did the best he could to salvage this dog's breakfast of a film.

Despite the problems, parts are greater than the whole of this film and some scenes are truly funny, others are campy, and many are sharp spoofs of 60s Bond films - The German school of spying is great, as is any scene with Woody Allen, and all of the bond girls in their over- the-top outfits are entertaining.

So, if you think this film looks like it was shot on acid, there is a reason!

Somewhere in here there is a good series, but the cheap production values are distracting. The worst is that it is filmed on videotape - a classic drawback to many BBC productions in the 1970s and early 1980s (DVD boxes should come with warnings that the original content was shot on videotape...) Also, although the plots are not transparent, the next scene usually can be anticipated because the writing suffers from predictability and small scenes - intimate discussions between two people in a tiny sitting room or office. This series could be a great candidate for a remake - after a polishing of the script with the addition of a dash of humour to alleviate the drama. Originally filmed in 1984, it could be updated or set in 1984, but with more of an eye to 1984 culture and a tad more tension. If this were a meal I would say its good, but it needs salt and pepper.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I thoroughly enjoyed this film while I was watching it, but as soon as I left the theatre and began thinking about the plot, I became aware how the filmmakers had cobbled together the story from the book and left far too many plot holes open and used too many gimmicks.

"Intellectuals" who think this film is a masterpiece will argue that you can't compare the film to the book, while using the book to shed light upon parts of the film that don't make sense without the background story from the book. Some say the film is about reincarnation, and that is how the film was sold in its promotion, but this is not the case because there are overlapping characters. The author of the book who said the only reincarnated character in the story is the central figure of each story and appears with a comet-shaped birthmark, except that two characters with that birthmark are alive at the same time.

I wouldn't normally give such a low rating to a film that, although flawed, is entertaining, but the film is getting obscenely high ratings from followers who won't look at this film critically, and find meaning where none exists. The simple message of this movie is that throughout time humans have and will continue to prey upon each other, in one way or another. This is a simple, straight forward thought and flows through all six stories. Looking for anything more meaningful than this is a waste of time and repeated watchings of the film, or reading the book is not going to make it more meaningful.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This short was shown before a documentary at the Grand River Film Festival. The story follows an elderly Sikh man from behind as he returns home, feeds his cat, lights a candle for his absent wife (we assume she has died). He sits on the bed and unwraps his turban and then takes a shower. At this point we are shown his face, which is bloodied and beaten. Flashbacks take us to scenes when the man was just beaten by three youths. The man then takes a pair of scissors and cuts his beard in half, while crying - roll credits.

This is a film with a blatant message - people who appear different are targets by thugs. We are left to assume this man was beaten because he is a Sikh but this film has no real story and no new message or insight to share about hate or prejudice. It comes across as a student film project that assaults the viewer with its heavy-handed point.

The Entrepreneur is a film about the director's father Malcolm Bricklin. Malcolm made and lost three fortunes in his lifetime - he brought Subaru and Yugo cars to North America, and created the Bricklin automobile (the 70s forerunner of the DeLorean), as well as invested in an electric bicycle before its time. Malcolm may have a good business sense, but his timing, single-mindedness, arrogance, and vulgarity gets in the way of his success.

Jonathan Bricklin seems to see this in his father and decided to make a film about him, although God knows why. There is nothing redeeming in Malcolm's nature and the film leaves an acrid distaste in the mouth. You aren't sure whether you are watching a business man, or a swindler/thug in action.

To make things worse, Jonathan Bricklin is not an experienced film maker. The documentary is not well edited, there are too many characters, too many harsh cuts between dark and light scenes and grainy, shaky film - all typical of low, low, low budget film making. If you want to see a film about an unlikable ruthless business magnate see Citizen Kane, The Social Network or The Devil Wears Prada...

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am usually the last person to suggest remaking a good film, but this series, which was shown as a two part three hour video in Canada, dragged too much and scuffed over some of the most salient points. For example, a file which is the crux of the storyline is never searched for amongst his father's possessions and we are left to assume that it was destroyed but we are never told that. Also, the main character has to ask what the last name of the assistant was, which he could have found out by looking through his father's papers. The power of attorney hearing is also unnecessary because proving he has Alzheimer's is easy - it requires a medical certificate from a qualified doctor - that's all, you don't have to prove it to a lawyer. Also, the affair he has with the barmaid is an unnecessary storyline. A rewrite with an hour shaved off the storyline, and dropping a few characters and scenes would have helped to make this a much better film.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

French Immersion starts off with great promise. A town in Northern Quebec is suffering economically after their mine closes. The town creates a French immersion school where participants stay with locals for an 'around the clock' French Immersion experience. Interesting characters are introduced playing the locals and students (most of whom are English Canadians).

After the set-up however, and some funny one-liners, the follow-through of the storyline fails. There are numerous scenes for potential that are squandered - a family who explains in French to a gay Newfy politician that he will be staying in their daughter's room who has gone to school, is misinterpreted by the politician as gone to heaven. A Jewish chef from New York befriends the local Indian restaurant owner whose new bride from India refuses to come out of her room. The Jewish chef makes Creme Brulee but the bride doesn't eat it, leaving the viewer confused as to why the scene was included in the film, especially when the Jewish chef skis home during a freak snow storm in July...?

The school is closed down after a surprise inspection occurs during an argument between English Canadian students and French Canadian faculty about who produces the best hockey players - English or French Canada. This street hockey challenge could have been a great scene in the movie, but in this film it falls flat, and afterwards the entire film also falls flat - ending inexplicably in a Bollywood dance sequence.

The film has a great set-up and gimmick but there is no follow-through. I hope someone who has the vision remakes this film because it could be hilarious from start to finish.

I have never seen one of these shows before, other than snippets on E or The Soup. However, as this show is set in Vancouver, and I was born and raised there, I thought I would watch one full episode.

I wish I hadn't.

I really want to scream in rage at whoever is in charge, I want to scream in frustration that such a show should even exist. Who are these Botox Barbies in fur coats sharpening their childish witticisms? Who marries these kinds of females? They are toxic and there is nothing 'real' about any part of them, especially not their teeth colour, skin colour, hair colour, boobs, or personalities. Do these women not realize that they are being watched only because everyone is laughing at them - they are cartoons of femininity!

Toronto society had the good taste to back out of participating in this type of show because the women were too smart and knew that they would become laughing stocks. These Vancouver women, whoever they might be (nobody has ever heard of them before), are stupid and desperate.

This show is revolting, and the women are setting back the women's liberation movement 80 years. I am appalled and saddened - who thought this was a good idea for a show? Shame on you.

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]