Reviews written by registered user

Page 5 of 10: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [Next]
97 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

6 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
A tremendous disappointment with Niven dreadfully mis-cast, 17 April 2001

I love the book. I loved the TV show. I HATED this movie, and most of it was the horrible mis-casting of David Niven opposite Doris Day. As a suburban mom with four precocious boys, a white elephant of a house, an irrepressible spirit, and very eccentric and nosy neighbors, Day is completely in here element. But, Niven as a writer, which you think SHOULD work, and a suburban dad,has absolutely no chemistry with Day, and is even more clueless about what makes his character do the things he does. This was only 3 years after he won Best Actor for the magnificent Separate Tables. But, apparently, he either enjoyed looking ridiculous or really needed the money because he went on to make at least three more American suburban Dad comedies, each one worse than the one before (Prudence and the Pill, the Impossible Years). Too Bad. The kids in this are surprisingly good by the way, especially with Day. The veteran character actors playing the neighbors, however, are all directed too broadly to draw any contrast or context. Overall, this is one to miss.

16 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Poignant Character Study with raw emotions, 17 April 2001

James Stewart plays an amoral whore-mongering marshal who is co-opted by the cavalry to find a group of settler children who had been taken captive and raised by the Commanches. Every supporting role is perfectly cast and the emotions strike deep to the core. Stewart is surprisingly comfortable playing an archly cynical contemptible mercenary with contempt for nearly everybody and everyone. Linda Cristal is excellent as the Mexican woman who was forced to be the Chief's wife for years. All aspects of captivity and dehumanization are carefully and sincerely explored here, and the twist ending is perfection itself. This is an overlooked classic.

Lady L (1965)
29 out of 37 people found the following review useful:
Riotous Satire Well Told By Veteran Cast, 17 April 2001

I had stayed away from this film because the critics panned it so viciously. Serves me right, because it was absolutely wonderful from beginning to end. Ustinov punctuates the rich satire in the script just perfectly with his grandiose direction. The cinematography is lush, and Sophia is outrageously good, as the strongly principled woman ahead of her time, who sees and is amused by all the rich ironies of life. Cecil Parker gives the movie it's opening tone and it never misses a best. But the writing is the strongest single aspect of the work, always remaining true to its characters, while making pungent observations on UK moral codes, class struggles, the battle of the sexes, the institution of marriage, and many others. Enjoy! 10/10

Alibi Ike (1935)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Mildly entertaining time capsule, 17 April 2001

Alibi Ike is adapted by Ring Lardner from his short story about an apocryphal pitching wunderkind who never tells the truth when an alibi will do, especially about his true feelings. Lardner took some of the edge off his original wit in attempting to adapt it to the slapstick talents of Joe E. Brown and it loses its punch in the process. Brown is lively enough, however, to engender enough good will to watch the fast-moving film to the end. Frawley is a standout as the manager, and Karnes, Harvey, and Dehavilland head a splendid supporting cast. If you have any tolerance for slapstick, this is pleasant enough fluff.

Yet, the most interesting thing about the movie is that the climactic scene in the movie takes place at a NIGHT game at a then-recently-built Wrigley field. For many years, until the last 80's, Wrigley was the only stadium which had no lights installed, and no scheduled night games. Apparently, I have come to learn just yesterday, that many teams, including the Cubs, experimented with temporary lighting for occasional big games at night, in the mid-30's, until Ebbets Field in Brooklyn became the first stadium with permanently installed lights in 1938. Still, it seems strange to watch a night game at Wrigley as it was in 1935. For that alone, baseball fans will find this worth watching. One final note, in real life, the Cubs went from cellar-dwellers in '34 to NL champs in '35 which is exactly what the movie reflected, even though the film was in the can by July of 1935, and there was no way that Enright and company could have known that the Cubs would win the pennant that year. Interesting. 6 of 10.

Red Planet (2000)
0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Incredibly STUPID movie., 28 March 2001

This is absolutely one of the stupidest movies it has ever been my misfortunes to see. The plot, such as it is, is horrible. The acting is passable, and the special effects are fine, but it's a really stupid movie, with plot not following its original direction not at all. STUPIDITY overwhelms everything else.

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Nice Updating of the Front Page, 9 March 2001

I thought the updating of the Front Page to the electronic era was surprisingly relevant and poignant. Henry Gibson is a standout in an excellent cast. The laughs and stories are updated for modern audiences and lose surprisingly little in the translation. The chemistry between Reynolds and Turner is pretty hot. All in all quite entertaining.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Suds galore, 6 March 2001

This is one of those tear-jerking big-cast soaps masquerading as war propaganda that Selznick specialized in during the war. Colbert and Woolley are magnificent. Jennifer Jones and Shirley Temple try hard to out overact each other. The production values and the score are marvellous. All-in-all, well produced Kleenex-fodder. 6/10.

21 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Magnificent neo-Hitchcock, 6 March 2001

This movie was bitterly panned upon its release, and I see a number of IMDB's reviewers agree with the original critics. I don't get it, except that this movie does such a good idea of taking you inside Stephen Bauer's character and what he is doing is so creepy that people react viscerally to him instead of the movie. The movie is engrossing, brilliantly photographed and well-paced. The camera angles and the chemistry between Bauer and Williams are reminiscent of what Hitchcock tried to do in Vertigo, but much less forced and contrived. All these characters behave in character. I really consider this one of the best romantic thrillers of all time. Yes, it is erotic. Why is that a bad thing? 10/10.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Fairly engrossing attempt to update Out of The Past, 6 March 2001

80's Film Noir almost works. Chemistry between Bridges and Ward is electric, and between Bridges and Woods. But there are so many plot threads and minor characters here that you need a football scorecard to keep track of them all. Photography and soundtrack are excellent, but thriller could use tighter editing. With just a bit more fine tuning this could've been great. It is still entertaining. 7/10.

11 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Highly Recommended, 22 February 2001

I've seen this several times on AMC and locally so I'm surprised it has less than 5 votes as of this writing date. Anyway, it is a taut, lean, western mystery that also serves as a well-drawn character study of what happens to friendship and love when one is falsely accused. Very well acted by Dana Andrews, Dianne Foster (very underrated actress - also see The Last hurrah and the Kentuckian), Donna Reed, James Westerfield, Stephen Elliott, and Whit Bissell. Very well directed, too. 9/10.

Page 5 of 10: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [Next]