10 Reviews
Sort by:
You can talk, you can talk ,you can bicker, you can talk...
28 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Hey, here's an idea. We'll make this third movie where this couple talk for more than 10 minutes while driving with their kids in the back. Might as well throw in a few f-bombs, since they had the good sense to fall asleep anyway. Then we'll have them meet up with some people in Greece and they'll gab on and on about their problems and their philosophy of life and then the couple will take a long walk and talk some more, then they'll go to a hotel and argue and scream and yell at each other, and oh yes, talk some more. Dialogue in a movie is one thing, but to endlessly drone on about your boring little life, well, that's so 80s. If it wasn't because of the screenplay nomination (!) I would have shut this gab fest off, and shut them up after 30 minutes.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Coming to TCM Friday late night
4 November 2009
Saw this film at a drive-in in Bellingham, Washington (hometown of Hilary Swank)under the title Massacre in Redneck County in 1979, four years after its listed release. It was also released simply as Redneck County. Can't recall too much of the movie (yes, I was watching it, but its been 30 years) except for a scene early on where Shelley Winters looks at herself in the mirror and declares" 'What an ugly bitch" (or something like that and the Elvis-clone 'Eddie' of the title. Good supporting cast for this type of fare. Enjoyable as typical drive-in trash of its day, wouldn't mind watching at least part of it again when it plays on TCM Friday Nov. 13/09.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Stuck (2007)
What a pretentious piece of....
31 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, I can't believe so many people found this movie to be some sort of comment on society or something else equally pretentious. This movie is a mess. First it starts out a bit like Crash with diverging story lines, then it's a drama, then about an hour in it's played for black humor, and finally it becomes a horror movie with a preposterous climax straight out of Fatal Attraction. Mira Sovari's character is at first presented as a bright, noble young woman, good at her job but soon becomes a shallow, selfish, heartless bitch. Did anyone else want to punch her when she kept insisting 'it's not my fault?" Of course it's your fault, you stupid cow. You're the one driving while high, you're the one not paying attention to the road. Suvari, who showed such promise in American Beauty, and co-produced here, doesn't really have the acting range to bring this character off. (BTW- what's with the hair?) Stephen Rea is adequate, his appearance and name give the movie some gravitas but the supporting cast are either stereotypes or wasted (in more ways than one.) Of course, one can read whatever they want into this movie, as they can with any movie. This one may appeal to some on the festival circuit but for others it's a very unpleasant experience that wears out its premise and welcome long before its brief 85 minute running time. There's nothing wrong with challenging movies or even ones as nasty and mean spirited as this one, but when pretension and cruelty take the place of plausible story telling and inappropriate humor, it borders on offensiveness.
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Poseidon (2006)
a few questions and a thought.
27 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
What is the point of remaking The Poseidon Adventure anyway? I mean, who comes up with these lame-ass ideas? This is one those projects that to use a Roger Ebert phrase 'has bad idea written all over it'. The original film is cheesy, yes, but in a fun, 70's-type way. The characters were engaging and the audience genuinely cared about them. In this remake the producers squandered a reported $150 million and forgot to add a decent script to their budget. Others on this board have articulated this point quite well so it probably doesn't need to be repeated but there are a few other points that could be mentioned. i.e -Why make Richard Dreyfuss' character gay? It serves no purpose and adds nothing to the story (except to draw attention to his ear stud).(Wouldn't it have added a bit of humor to have him come on to either Dillon or the young guy?) - Why is Kevin Dillon's character Lucky Larry such an asshole at such a crucial moment? At least he dies quickly, a fact that must have had some of the few audience members who saw this in the theater cheering. -Why does the young hunky guy have his legs pinned by an object that takes three people to remove and then is able to walk, run, swim and jump like nothing happened? Freddy Rodriegez's role is the only one baring any resemblance to a character from the previous movie, played by Roddy McDowell and suffers much the same fate when he is no longer needed in the story. The moral complications of Dreyfuss' actions regarding his death could have been addressed if someone had bothered to care about writing a half-way(or even quarter-way) decent script instead of taking their supposedly hefty fee and running to the bank with the check.

-Final point- Do movie audiences want to see, post 9/11, scenes of people falling to their deaths, being crushed, burned and drowned? This aspect makes movies like this,including The Towering Inferno very uncomfortable to watch and may also explain the movie's deservedly albeit surprisingly lame box-office performance.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Have you all forgotten...?
1 October 2004
The reason this piece of cinematic sludge isn't higher (lower?) on the bottom 100 is that many probably haven't seen it or forgotten the reaction this caused when it was first unleashed; reports of booing, loud bronx cheers and projectiles being thrown at the screen. Seeing this at a drive-in, the management needed to make frequent announcements to warn viewers of noise by-laws. The movie, which cost something like eleven million dollars, a fair budget in those days (by comparison Star Wars, in release at the same time cost much less)was also given a unanimous (or close to it) critical response that was unusually savage for a big-budget studio picture. Understandaably, there are people out there who may view this as a guilty pleasure or a masochistic good time (who can forget James Earl Jones dressed as a giant locust or his classic line: Tear this ship apart until you find those plans....oops sorry that was another movie that year...."I flew with Pazuzu on the wings of a demon" It should also be noted that the same year Richard burton did this, he gave one of his finest screen performances ever in Equus. The response to Exorcist II may have inadvertently cost him the Oscar that year, another reason this thing deserves a higher placing. It may not be as inept as Manos or any of the various zero-budget pictures listed above, but its reputation should be preserved.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
the single-most shamelessy over rated movie of the 70s
4 June 2004
I just wanted to add what may be the lone dissenting voice on this board concerning this movie. Is there anyone else out there who agrees, at least in part, with the heading? Firstly, movie is very hypocritical in its treatment of the patients by wanting us to feel compassion (fair enough) while making fun of their afflictions. There is the lead actor. Nicholson's performance is fine, if he's playing Jack Nicholson but what's all this anti-hero talk. McMurphy comes across as a completely selfish and self-eserving figure, without much humanity or compassion for others. Louis Fletcher plays Nurse Ratched in a somnambulistic state, dreary monotone and is about as threatening as Audrey Hepburn. Milos Forman's direction is uneven and reflects the hypocrisy of the entire project. This man must surely be one of the most over-rated directors of the era as well.

'Cuckoo's Nest' (the title alone proves the hypocrisy point)is'nt one-tenth the movie Nashville is and mainly won all its awards strictly because audiences of the time (and still apparently now)seem to fall for its phony pandering, false emotions and blatent audience manipulation. If these comments help bring the picture down a bit from its lofty position on the top 250 list, then I have done my duty.
18 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nashville (1975)
One of the greatest films of its era.
15 May 2004
Can't believe I've taken this long to reply re: Nashville. It is simply the movie that has had the biggest influence on my life since I first had the honor of viewing it one hot August day in Seattle in 1975. Leaving the theatre dazed, numbed and shattered, in a way only a truly great work of art is able to accomplish, at having seen something so unique and so powerful it helped this then 21 year old Canadian see life and the possibility of film in an entirely different light. That's a pretty lofty thing for a movie to do, but Nashville is the most defining movie of my lifetime, the one that all others were judged by or compared to. Over the years I have viewed this movie countless times in second-run, revival houses, and even on television where it's impact is of course diluted by commercials and indifferent presentations It was the first movie I bought on DVD, even before I owned a player and have scoured newspapers, books and magazines long before the access of the internet to read everything available on this film. Unfortunately, Nashville's reputation suffered during the dark years of the 1980-90s (the complete exclusion from the AFI's list of 100 greatest films of all time was especially vexing but rallied a bit with its availability on DVD. True, it is a love it or hate it movie, most great works of art do bring out these strong emotions and I have experienced both during the close to 30 years since the movie's release, but for those of us who love it, there are very few others that compare.
19 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
high school gangs -70s style
7 February 2004
Saw this movie one hot August day in Seattle in '76. Was drawn by the lurid ad and the cheap matinee price. Instead of the chain wielding, snarling,figure on the one-sheet imagine how surprising it was to find out the lead actor was a skinny, blond-haired, blue-eyed pretty boy. The whole movie is clearly awful, the lead actor wouldn't cut muster in a high-school production and the others aren't much better including Steve Bond, latter of General Hospital and Canadian Doug McGrath of the classic Goin' Down the Road six years earlier. Understand that lead actor David Kyle became a missionary, a complete about-face from his role here.

The movie was no better than the usual drive-in fare being produced at that time but at least it's storyline, about high school gangs was a little more 'meaty' than the usual teen hi-jinks comedies of the time. A guilty pleasure? Not really, but at least it may have been trying to convey something about high school violence and dysfunctional families. Or not.

Incidently this movie was released on video under the title Cruisin' High which made it sound like either the typical teen hi-jinks comedy or set in a gay high school. Either way it was misleading since very little of the action takes place in a high school and the cruising involves gang rumbles.

May hold some interest to those who love movies of the time and the differing attitudes of today.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oliver! (1968)
At least one dissenter for this thing
17 January 2004
Just casually looking over the comments on this page but does anyone else out there think this movie stinks? Mawkish, ugly, and wildy over-produced, even for its time. Hardly a Dickens purist, its not for that reason I really dislike this movie, something I've done since first seeing it during its original roadshow theatrical run. The acting is mediocre at best, complete with an effiminate Fagin prancing across the screen and an angelic title character who's cloying in the extreme.I am a fan of musicals, even from this era but this one is so overblown at the best of times. A nice song such as "Who Will Buy?'turned into a ful-fledged production number is just one example of this picture's excess. Funny Girl, released the same year and much more successful commerically is so much better directed and of course actted even if the storyline left a lit to be desired.Ranks with Greatest show On Earth and Rocky as most undeserving Best Picture winner ever. Who win buy? Not this viewer!
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Red Deer (2000)
typical pretenious Canadian crap
21 September 2002
This drek is the kind of product that gives Canadian features a bad name. Incredibly slow and pointless with endless scenes of boring people walking. Must have thought they were doing a Canadian version of an Altman-type film but with the pacing and arty-pretention of a Bergman. James Hutson does have a presence however and look forward to seeing him in much better product. This is a prime example of how Ottawa spends our hard-earned tax dollars on finiancing slop that even the most die-hard festival goer must have had trouble sitting through.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this