Reviews written by registered user
|108 reviews in total|
I was stunned to watch this awful piece of amateur garbage after
hearing the glowing introduction on TCM. What was that host thinking?
What are all these reviewers on IMDb thinking? Could they really be
watching the same movie I watched?
Where to start? You have to start with Tony Randall playing a "Chinese gentleman." That's bad enough just to watch, but when he opens his mouth you know you're in for something beyond the bounds of bad taste and beyond high-school amateurishness. His voice is pitched high and thin, and he speaks in the worst stage-Chinese, the kind of phony accent some idiot everyone hates would put on at a party--"So solly,"Please to ask question," Velly good." That alone pretty much makes the movie unbearable.
But the writing! Who wrote such clunky drivel? Something happens, then eight people stand in front of the camera, as if posing for a group photograph, to react. Spectator A makes Comment A. Spectator B makes comment B. Spectator C makes Comment C. Clunk-clunk-clunk. If a machine could write a play, it would write like that. There's often something clunky, too, about the transitions to close-ups.
Another example of amateurish writing. One scene is supposed to establish that an attractive young widow is burying herself from The Joy of Life, turning down the advances of a handsome young suitor. But the handsome young man is made so aggressive, even clutching at her against her will, so utterly without charm, that it is perfectly understandable that the widow would not want to go out to dinner with him. The scene was meant to show her as repressed and unable to respond to love; instead she seems spirited and perfectly right in turning away the loutish suitor.
The movie is peppered with touches of "humour." Every 30 seconds or so there's a so-called funny bit of business--a man bending over and being hit on the ass by a tossed newspaper (Ha ha!), a woman stepping onto her porch in her bloomers (Ho ho!). None of it is funny, and the steady stream of such bits is truly annoying.
Yes, this was made back in the sixties, but even that doesn't excuse the pathetic costume of the Abominable Snowman. Spare us, please.
Oh, and will I ever forget Tony Randall's big dance number? He plays Pan, the half-man, half-goat satyr, the ancient symbol of lust. Lord help us, there is Tony with his shirt off, turning and twisting (that passes for dancing), leering at the woman over a set of pan pipes held to his mouth. It verges on the ridiculous, if it weren't quite so yukky. Yet the camera shows her getting hot and bothered, her clothes loosening, her hair coming undone, her breath an erotic panting. And, please, producers, since this was Pan, couldn't the music play some real pan pipes instead of the flute?
I could go on all night. There's nothing to redeem this wreck of a movie. Even the casting is bad. The villain, a wicked businessman man who wants to buy up the property of everyone in town. who thinks human beings have no redeeming qualities, is played by Arthur O'Connell, that nice character actor who specialized in lovable, easily confused, old guys like Virgil who tries to rein in the young buck in "Bus Stop" or Elvis Presley's Pappy in "Kissin' Cousins"
No, you'd have to go a long way to find a worse movie than this one, something that fails on as many levels as this. All I can think of to explain the positive reviews on IMDb is that people are turned to goo by the smarmy messages the movie paints in huge block letters over the junk canvas of this movie.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Shaw can be good sometimes, but in The Doctor's Dilemma he is not. At
the very heart of the play, the central dilemma is a forced, utterly
artificial situation. The contrast between the deserving patient and
the undeserving patient is stark and amateurish. The sick doctor is too
wonderfully simple, fantastically modest, uncomplaining, virtuous,a
complete paragon. And look how the undeserving sick artist is
portrayed--undeserving because he is "immoral," illustrated not because
he murders people, worships the devil, or sells opium to children but
because he borrows money without any intention of paying it back. And
it is suspected he lives with a woman who is not his wife. How can
anyone believe such a reprobate deserves to live? And then there is
what stands as the argument that he should be chosen to live over the
modest doctor--he is an artistic genius with such transcendent gifts
that one glance at his drawings is enough to identify him absolutely as
a genius. Wouldn't it be nice in the real world if recognition were so
immediate and complete? Not for a second does one believe in the
central situation on which the entire play depends. The devotion of the
artist's wife adds to the general air of falsity by being exaggerated
to impossible heights.
Only one doctor in the whole world has the cure for tuberculosis? And he can guarantee the cure? Remarkable. He can handle ten patients at a time, maybe squeeze in an eleventh, but a twelfth is impossible? Really. How can we be expected to believe in such an artificial situation? In a philosophical argument such a strained case would fit nicely, but hardly in a drama, which purports to put the flesh and blood of real people on the philosophical abstractions.
As for being dated, perhaps in Shaw's time there was some credibility about the idea of doctors playing the role of virtuosos, each hanging his reputation on his proprietary "cure," but it is sadly out of date today, when medical procedures are derived out of scientific testing and universally shared.
The banter of the doctors has its entertaining moments, although their offhand willingness to let their patients die is another example of the play's artificiality.
Reviews here praise the acting. Perhaps that is true of the bantering doctors, but John Robinson as the main character caught on the horns of the dilemma of the title is so stiff and proper that he conveys no emotion, no humanity, nothing real. In the later scenes I was sure the play was going to have a twist ending with Dirk Bogarde somehow being miraculously cured because I did not for a moment believe he was sick and at death's door. Itès hard to say whether that was because I didn't believe much of anything about the play or because of Bogarde's acting.
The positive reviews here leave me puzzled. I wonder whether Shaw isn't being given a free pass because of some of his other plays?
This is the first Mexican Spitfire movie I've seen, and I found it
great fun. Lord Epping is a howl--yes, probably a vaudeville standard
for Leon Errol, but a very good one. The sputtering, the exaggerated
English accent, the little comments made under his breath, the funny
walk (Monty Python was right about how far a funny walk can take you in
getting laughs), what's not to like? As for Lupe Velez, this is the
first time I've seen her, and I understand completely why her first
appearance in an earlier movie led to a series of follow-ups. She's
pretty, and with all her comedic turns you can hardly take your eyes
off her. She definitely left me wanting to see more of her. People are
right her to say that she plays a secondary role to the Errol
characters in this movie, but if you haven't seen her before, it just
may leave you looking for more. I'll certainly tune in any time I see
another Mexican Spitfire movie playing. I'm glad I discovered this one.
Simple, farcical comedy, but an amusing way to spend an hour or so.
What a terrible shame success didn't bring Lupe Velez happiness.
I was able to watch for only an hour before I gave up and walked away.
It's really quite awful.
Other commentators here are impressed by Merle Oberon's acting. Maybe it gets better in the last half hour, because in what I saw she wasn't called upon to do much. She was, however, stunning to look at, a real beauty, about the only thing that kept me watching for an hour.
The rest of the film was worse than mediocre. Some of the sets looked like they belonged in a Little Theatre production. The music kept intruding with exaggerated emotion. The fight scene in the barn had that odd, speeded-up, Saturday morning serial look to it, with two guys tossing each other around in the most unconvincing way. But mostly the storyline could not be believed at all sorts of crucial moments. For example, the moment Oberon falls under suspicion. Why would she put herself under the spotlight? And why didn't he suspect her long before that moment? There was nothing special about that moment that he should suddenly suspect her for the first time. Her plan to get into the restricted area of the hospital is ridiculously complex, relying on so many things going precisely the way she hoped they would. The method the optometrist uses to convey secret information back to Britain is depicted at some length, unfortunately not in a way that is very clear--something about glasses, but how it all works was a mystery to me.
It just wasn't worth watching. But Merle Oberon is an actress I will watch out for in the future. Maybe she can act, maybe she can't, but she can sure light up the screen.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I'm not even going to read what other people have written about this
film, because whatever they find praiseworthy in itsome technical
things, certainlynothing can make up for the horror of what you're
watching on screen. You are watching 102 minutes of child abuse. In
many scenes it's portrayed graphically, but from beginning to end child
abuse makes up the content of the story.
Does it matter if the 15-year-old girl is curious about sex and asks for it from the 35-year-old boyfriend of her mother? Does it make it better? Does it matter if she enjoys having sex with him, or if she wants to continue when, after many months, he wants to stop? The girl is 15, naive, she doesn't understand the implication and the consequences of what she's doing, so doesn't think there's anything so terrible about what's happening, and because the story is told from her point of view, it all proceeds, scene after scene, for such a long time, as if there's nothing really so wrong about it. I think that's the worst part of it. But of course it's statutory rape. It's child abuse, a grown man taking advantage of a young girl's curiosity and budding sexuality (he tells her she gives him a hard-on, and when she's likes the idea, he takes her hand and shoves it down his pants), taking her into his bed when he should have gently turned her down and done a little fatherly counselling.
Even at the end, there's no sense of the horror of the abuse. The man who abused the child loses his sexual privileges with the mother and her daughter, but he doesn't pay any price. He walks away a free man, a little chastened after being rejected by them, but free and untouched. Neither the mother nor the daughter report him to the police. Nobody tells the estranged father, who would certainly have taken severe action. The movie treats the abuse as just an experience, just something that happened, just part of the girl's growing up. There's a tiny hint of the profound repercussions that would follow in real life, when she finds she can't make love to a boy of her own age, because she is too experienced for him, she knows too much about sex. It's a small sign; her life will be marked in many other ways, too. In the final scene we see her dancing crazily in her bedroom like a normal 15-year-old. Are we to believe that this is the end, that now she'll go back to being an ordinary 15-year-old? In real life it won't be anything like that. She'll be carrying with her the load of the many forms of depravity she's experienced. She will be deeply scarred. She knows from practical experience that if she needs money she can always give men blowjobs. Doing it once for money makes it much easier the next time. She's crossed so many boundaries.
Here's how my wife and I reacted through the whole movie "Oh my god, no, no! This is awful, horrible! This is wrong!" I couldn't believe the film was showing this story. I was waiting for someone to show some regret, some reluctance, some conscience, some sense of right and wrong, but it never came until a little, just a little sense of morality, near the end.
And, as if sexual abuse wasn't enough, the girl is introduced to sniffing cocaine at a party her mother holds in their apartment, she approaches men in a bar and gives them a blowjob for $15, she is seduced by a heroin-addicted lesbian, and she almost agrees to having sex with a strange man as payment for her lesbian "friend" getting heroin.
Why weren't the producers charged with child pornography? They show a 15-year-old girl fully nude in various shots, they show her multiple times naked in bed with a naked man on top of her, they show her giving oral sex. If these scenes were not in the context of a "major motion picture," if they were just shown on their own, I'm sure they would count as child pornography.
I watched in open-mouthed horror from beginning to end. No, I didn't walk out. I was hoping for some kind of moral turn in the plot, some retribution against the abuser, some sense on the part of the mother and the girl of the profound harm that was done, but it never came.
I wish I hadn't seen this film. It left me with the nastiest feelings I ever remember after seeing a movie. I am going to do my best to put it out of my mind (this lengthy review, I hope, will help get rid of some of those feelings). I wish it hadn't been made. I wish the police would charge the producers with child pornography.
How to account for the positive reviews this movie has gotten,
especially out of the Sundance Festival, where it established its bona
fides? Perhaps some people were impressed by the rawness of the
depiction of the lives of these prostitutes and pimps, the violence,
the fighting, the screaming, the nasty little moments of furtive sex in
back alleys. Perhaps it was the use of hand-held cameras, constantly
moving along the sidewalks, and the mean streets of Los Angeles used as
a backdrop, not blockaded off for the filming but with real people and
real street activity used as background for the actors.
But let's focus on the essentials, not just the voyeuristic thrill of glimpsing into a world the average person knows nothing of. Let's ask what we take away, what the effect is on us of seeing for 90 minutes lives reduced to such depravity, lives lived from moment to moment, with an act of prostitution to pay for the next meal or a bit of drugs, where a woman who needs love believes that what she gets from her pimp is love, and where we only see the world beyond the world of pimps and prostitutes in a family man who drives a taxi and secretly has sex with a transvestite or a carful of young people who throw urine on prostitutes. It's really a disgusting picture. For the price of that little shiver you get at turning over a stone and seeing the insects scuttle around, you feel dirty all over at the end of this movie and want to take a shower.
This is not Zola, who depicted the hard life of French miners in order to rouse the conscience of the nation to improve their lot. This is just peering into the abyss for the momentary thrill it gives you. I pitied the women, and wondered whether they had any choice in getting into that world, but the movie offered no explanations, no exculpation, and no hope of redemption. It really is a bad movie.
As I scrolled through pages of reviews here, it seemed a majority
didn't like it at all. Most agreed with me that the idea had some
potential but that the final result was shallow and pretty boring.
Visually it was striking, though.
If you know the British TV series Black Mirror, this looked like one of their episodes - the same kind of visuals, the same sci-fi mode, the same attempt to be ultimately unnerving.
But with so many people voting low, how did it end up with a rating of 7.7? There sure must have been a lot of 8-10s to outbalance all the 3- 6's.
What a gorgeous work this is! It just never stops filling the eyes with
beauty, whether in the costumes and jewelry or the sets or in the
actresses themselves. It's just a constant delight to watch. And the
story never becomes dull.
It's all about a girl, Huan, in the early part of the Qing dynasty in China, who is one of the daughters of government officials called in to be reviewed as possible additions to the emperor's stable of concubines. Huan is apparently the only candidate who is not interested in leaving her previous life to live in luxury in the Forbidden City vying for the emperor's attention. Once she joins the harem, it's not long before she becomes subject to the pressures of that life, so idyllic and pampered on the outside but so uncertain and dangerous, even deadly, in reality. The plots and intrigues, conspiracies and poisonings never end. She has her setbacks but learns to survive and outlasts even the emperor. The ending is a little surprising but fits perfectly everything that has gone before.
Because this is a major Chinese production (the original version, pre-Netflix, consisted of 76 episodes), we assume a great deal of authenticity. The attention to detail in costumes and sets is astonishing, and hopefully the storyline is also accurate. We certainly get a detailed, wonderfully colourful look into what life must have been like in the Chinese court during the Qing period.
Westerners will occasionally become confused over names and titles, but usually things become clear, given a little time and patience. Certainly the story and the eye candy make it worthwhile.
Give us more, China, give us more!
I won't repeat what others have said already here, other than to agree
that this is an excellent movie. I do think some reviewers make it
sound more bizarre than I did. For the most part I found it to be a
generally straightforward war movie, although with a mystery added to
it that, in the final scenes, takes on a deeper meaning.
For us non-Russians, the movie has a special interest in showing what the war was like from the Russian point of view. I do, though, want to mention one scene that stretches credulity just a little. When the war ends and the Germans surrender, the top German officers are given royal treatment, a dinner fit to have come from a very exclusive restaurant. I thought it would be their last meal and they would be executed immediately afterwards, but the movie gives no indication of that. While it might be possible that an incident like that did occur, I doubt that it was the norm. The victorious Russians were generally terrible in the way they treated prisoners, certainly before the surrender. And that is an enormous understatement. After the surrender German prisoners were marched off to do forced labour in Russia, only a small percentage of whom ever returned. And it was not just prisoners--the atrocities the Russian inflicted on German civilians were just as horrifying. Yet, to be fair, it was was payback for the equally brutal treatment the Germans soldiers meted out to Poles and Russians as they advanced in the early stages of their invasion.
As a music lover, I have one nit to pick. The credits say "Music by Richard Wager." Yes, the little music in the soundtrack does use a snatch of a tune by Wagner, but to say it's "his" music--no, it's only a tiny fragment of the original and without his fabulous orchestration.
As of today the movie can be found on YouTube with English subtitles.
When people praise this film for being realistic, they must be thinking
of how it portrays the look of the insides of a submarine, the living
conditions, the military procedures, and so on. They can't be talking
about the characters or dialogue. Movies made during the war have to
keep the spirits of the viewers up, so the effects on the scripts are
deadly. The worst part of these movies is always the interplay between
the characters, so good- humoured and cheery in every situation. The
"boys" (and they do act like boys) are always light-hearted and playful
with each other, like puppies in a box. Even their lusts seem childlike
and innocent, consisting of a few jokes about a pin-up girl.
Occasionally a character will be portrayed a little differently,
fearful or bitter, but we know it will work out well, and it's really
only for effect, a little spice added to the dish, and a hint that
"Gee, you see how realistic this movie is (wink, wink)?" The commanders
don't really worry much about death -- under fire, with the possibility
of death facing them at any second, their faces register the kind of
concern they'd have over a flat tire or while waiting for a daughter
staying out late after her prom. It's what passes for bravery in these
Now in the case of "Destination Tokyo" can we really talk about realism when the submarine is usually an obvious model, when the captain sends the sub down to 150 feet and we can see the sunlight reflecting off the surface of the water a couple of feet over the model?
Enjoy the movie for what it is, but let's get rid of the pretence that these are realistic to any significant degree. Just compare them for a second with "Das Boat" and what they leave out will become apparent.
|Page 1 of 11:||          |