reddpill Reviews

One, Two, Three (1961)

Billy Wilder's worst

[3/10 · 10 April 2022]

Imagine that the Marx Brothers decided to write a movie about divided Berlin at the time of the Berlin Wall, then refused to appear in it. You would probably get something very close to this. The film is a steady string of silly jokes that deliver a smattering of chuckles but no belly laughs, delivered every few seconds with scarcely time for the actors to breathe. As Arlene Francis says in one line, "No, I don't think it's funny."

James Cagney is C. R. MacNamara, a Coca-Cola executive in West Berlin whose boss in Atlanta sends his teenage daughter Scarlett (a lame GWTW reference to go with the phony southern accents) to stay with the MacNamaras to keep her away from a rock & roller she is engaged to. Instead of keeping out of trouble, she sneaks into East Berlin and marries a young fully-indoctrinated communist (Horst Buccholz). This provides the opportunity for Cagney and Buchholz to deliver a non-stop litany of bad Cold War stereotypes.

Finland banned the film, concerned that the anti-communist attempts at humor would harm their relations with the Soviet Union. They should have been concerned that it would harm their relations with the US. Apparently Abby Mann (the screenwriter for "Judgment at Nuremburg") was so disgusted by the film that he felt obliged to apologize for it at the Moscow Film Festival despite having nothing to do with film himself. That should give you an idea.

Arthur (I) (2011)

Do yourself a favor -- rent the original instead

[6/10 · 6 April 2011]

Was this remake horrible? No, but it also wasn't that great. In only a couple of scenes did this film lift itself above mediocrity. In comparing this update to the 1981 version, the original is simply better on every point. Russell Brand is probably the best choice they could make for the lead, but he doesn't measure up to Dudley Moore's Arthur. And the wonderful Helen Mirren does her best, but she just can't match John Gielgud's witty portrayal of Hobson. The writing fell particularly short of the mark. The one bright spot for me was Greta Gerwig, whom I had not previously seen. She did a fine job of making a thinly-written character become real. I look forward to seeing her in the future.

Enemy at the Gates (2001)

Generally good, but with a few problems

[7/10 · 11 October 2009]

For the most part, I liked this film. It had a good story, based on historical people and events, some taut drama, a nice little love story on the side. It was well-shot and mostly well-acted.

There are, however, a couple of significant problems with the film. First, there are the accents. Most of the actors made little effort at developing believable accents and spoke in their own accents. I could have lived with this, although some credible accents would have helped. What was really objectionable was Ron Perlman, who tried to speak with an accent, but it came out more Australian-sounding than Russian. He would have been better off just using his American accent.

My other chief objection involved the climactic scene. Without delivering any spoilers, I will only say (as others have) that it seemed to have been plucked straight out of a western movie. There was not even any subtlety to that allusion, and it served no purpose in the film. My guess is that writer-director Jean-Jacques Annaud was a fan of those classic western showdown scenes and wanted to incorporate the look as a matter of style. It didn't work.

Having made those objections, however, I will re-iterate that my overall impression of the film was positive. If you enjoy a good war film that is not just a "rally round the flag" kind of glorification of war, you will probably enjoy enough to make it worth watching. Just don't expect it to be on your list of all-time greats.

Ring of Passion (1978 TV Movie)

Great real-life story, but not great film realization

[6/10 · 12 February 2009]

I had recently commented to a friend of mine about the generally high quality of movies based on real-life boxing legends. While there were some truly bad films made about fictitious boxers, the biopics seemed quite reliable: Somebody Up There Likes Me; The Great White Hope; Raging Bull; even Ali and Hurricane I felt were decent films that were under appreciated. Thus, when I saw this film about Joe Louis and Max Schmeling, I figured I would give it a shot. While not a terrible film, it was a disappointment.

The story seems a natural: Joe Louis and Max Schmeling were each heavyweight champion of the world for a time in the 1930s (Louis continuing as champion through the end of the 1940s). Louis was a black boxer during a time of widespread racism. Schmeling was a German boxer during the early part of Hitler's reign. Due to the times in which they fought, each fighter's career took on meaning beyond the men themselves, although each wanted fans to focus on them just as boxers and keep the politics out of it.

Given the politics, the two meetings of these great boxers should have made for compelling storytelling, but the treatment here is only so-so TV movie fare. The script was too modest, with no flashes of brilliance to lift it up. The cast consisted of second-tier actors at best who could not breathe life into the film. I would like to see a great film made from this story, but Ring of Passion was not it.

In the Good Old Summertime (1949)

Mostly in the wintertime, and not so good, either.

[6/10 · 13 December 2008]

Van Johnson and Judy Garland play feuding co-workers who have unwittingly been carrying on a romance through the Postal Service. Johnson steals bits from well-known writers to include in his letters, which seems appropriate since so much of the dialogue was lifted word-for-word from The Shop Around the Corner, the earlier film from which this was remade.

They did make a few changes from the original: they shot it in Technicolor and set the story in a music shop so that Garland would have an excuse to sing. (Fair warning: while this movie is often billed as a musical, the songs are few and far between compared to what you would normally expect for that category.) The lavish color, musical numbers, and even the addition of a baby in one scene (and young Liza Minelli in another) do not make up for the charm that was taken out compared to the original.

How does this remake fail? Johnson is a bit too caddish and not as likable as Shop's James Stewart. Likewise, Judy Garland match the performance of Margaret Sullavan, who struck a perfect balance between a brash defender of the man with whom she has been corresponding and a sensitive, vulnerable woman seeking romantic love. As a pair, Johnson and Garland lack the chemistry of Stewart and Sullavan, and director Robert Z. Leonard cannot supply the scenes with the naturalism or charm that Ernst Lubitsch provided.

Had I not seen The Shop Around the Corner (and in fact I re-viewed it just prior to watching In the Good Old Summertime), Summertime's shortcomings might have been less noticeable, but I cannot ignore the huge difference between the the two films and have rated and reviewed this film accordingly. If you have a choice, I would urge that you take a pass on Summertime and watch the original instead. If you are one of those people who just can't stand watching black & white movies (and oh, what you are missing if you are!), opt for the later remake, You've Got Mail with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. They kept the color, tossed out the songs, and brought back much of the charm and chemistry that made the original a classic.

W. (I) (2008)

It could have been better

[6/10 · 9 November 2008]

Josh Brolin gives an excellent performance as President George W Bush, as does Richard Dreyfuss as Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others. Other roles seemed a bit miscast or misplayed. James Cromwell is a fine actor but bears little resemblance to President George H.W. Bush, and Thandie Newton (whom I also admire) gives National Security Adviser Condie Rice a cartoonishly nasal voice.

The hit-and-miss qualities of the casting and acting also provide some problems in the script. Past critics of Oliver Stone (who directed but did not write this script) may be surprised at how soft the film is on our lame-duck Prez. While it gives a quick mention of several personal problems in his early adult life (borderline academic performance, the Texas Air National Guard issue, getting a girl pregnant before meeting Laura, etc.), and there are some compelling scenes involving the relationship of George W. Bush's trouble relationship with his father and jealousy over the latter's admiration for brother Jeb. However, Bush as president is characterized as more aware and in-charge than one might expect from the choice of directors.

Stone and writer Stanley Weiser give no mention of intelligence manipulation or of allegations of plans to invade Iraq existing prior to 9/11. There is no mention of widespread protests before and after the invasion. There is no mention of the questions of legality under the United Nations Charter. This film's sole focus in the presidential years of George W Bush is on Iraq policy, so why didn't it take the time to really dig into the controversies? See W. if you must, but wait for it to show up on basic cable. It shouldn't take too long.

Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

A fine film, but with some historical compromises

[7/10 · 7 September 2008]

Charlie Wilson's War, based on a true story, tells the tale of a Texas congressman and a CIA agent working to secure funding for covert support of the Mujaheddin in 1980s Afghanistan following the USSR invasion of the country. This conflict played a major role in the final years of the Cold War between the US and the USSR.

In terms of film making, Charlie Wilson's War is a definite winner. It well-written, well-acted, and well-shot. While most of the attention has gone to Tom Hanks for yet another fine performance, I was even more impressed with Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as CIA operative Gust Avrakotos. Scenes of Soviet attacks on under-armed villages and of the refugee camp effectively tug at the heart. The film also gives a good behind-the-scenes look at the wheeling and dealing that Congressman Wilson must go through to secure the desired funding.

There are, however, two complaints I have about the film. The first is that there is a subplot involving an scandal investigation that is not well-developed and as such only serves as a minor distraction to the story line. The second complaint is that the film lacks some of the context of the war. The film makes the Mujaheddin look like innocent victims, and while they did suffer large civilian casualties, the Mujaheddin were in fact rebels trying to topple the government of Afghanistan. This government, ignored entirely in the film, not surprisingly fought to suppress the rebellion, later calling on the Soviet Union for support in their effort. The film also ignores that the US was aiding the Mujaheddin prior to the Soviet deployment in Afghanistan. The film did hint at the unintended consequences of our covert actions -- consequences we are still feeling today -- but it seems as if screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director Mike Nichols were willing to sacrifice some historical context to provide a cohesive narrative. (Not having read the book, I do not know if George Crile made the same compromise.) Those complaints notwithstanding, I did enjoy watching Charlie Wilson's War and do recommend it. I would have preferred a film that more accurately depicted the complexities of the situation, as Stephen Gaghan did in Syriana, but the audiences connected better with cohesive narrative of Charlie Wilson's War than with the ambiguities present in Syriana.

For Your Consideration (2006)

No Oscars here

[6/10 · 26 November 2006]

For Your Consideration continues with the same talented group of writers and actors that have produced the wonderful mockumentaries This is Spinal Tap, Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show, and A Mighty Wind. Unfortunately, they fail to pull it off this time.

There are some good scenes, such as Catherine O'Hara's morning-after interview on failing to get her Oscar nomination. There are also fine performances, particularly with Harry Shearer, and the dead-on riff on Hollywood gossip shows delivered by show hosts Fred Willard and Jane Lynch. O'Hara is good through much of the film, but in the last half seems to be doing her imitation of Jennifer Coolidge with her too-tight smile and over-applied lipstick. This works much better for Coolidge than for O'Hara.

The show might have benefited from better editing (the final scene with Parker Posey being noticeably too long, for example), and talented actors like Richard Kind, Sandra Oh, and Paul Dooley were relegated to cameos. Kind in particular could have added some laughs that were all-too few in this effort. Christopher Guest & company can give -- indeed have given -- far better entertainment than that provided by FYC.

King Kong (2005)

Nothing new

[6/10 · 1 January 2006]

I have been a fan of Peter Jackson's work since "Heavenly Creatures" and throughout the "Lord of the Rings" series. At the same time, I questioned what he could bring to a remake of King Kong. Therefore, I went to see King Kong with some mixed emotions. I came out with a great deal of disappointment.

While some of the effects were great and Jackson brought the great ape to life as only modern computer animation makes possible, the story is really not much more than a retelling of the same tale as in the 1933 version, with little new (besides the effects) to offer. The fine acting by Brody, Watts, and Black were not enough to save this film from mediocrity. Surprisingly, the special effects were not always up to par, either. Too often, the Ann Darrow image in Kong's clutches looked like a doll, and computer-generated (CG) humans moved like they were CG. It seems that Jackson's WETA effects team put all of the efforts into the animals and little into the humans.

Add to these shortcomings what I would call the physics problems. Kong climbs and swings from objects that would not come close to supporting a beast of his size, and Darrow's neck would certainly snap from the way Kong whipped her around in many scenes. I could have overlooked some of these physics problems had other elements of the film been better, but it is clear that Jackson has faltered in this effort.

IMDb ratings tend to be higher early after a film's release because movies will be seen first by those more likely to enjoy the film. Despite this effect, Jackson's Kong trails the original slightly in IMDb ratings at the time of this posting. This should tell potential viewers something.

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)

Strathairn and documentary footage produce a winner

[9/10 · 16 October 2005]

This film was a real treat, with Strathairn's dead-on performance as legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow a sure bet for at least an Oscar nomination. Perhaps the best decision by writer-director George Clooney was to cast no one in the role of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Instead, Clooney uses actual footage of McCarthy in the HUAC hearings and press conferences. Movies based on actual historical events often sensationalize events, but the extensive use of documentary footage brings home the reality of this movie's story line.

In addition to Strathairn's best performance to date, the entire cast delivers, from Clooney himself as Murrow's producer Fred Friendly, to Frank Langella as CBS chairman William Paley, to Ray Wise as the insecure anchorman Don Hollenbeck. If there is a weak point in the cast, it is Jeff Daniels, who was given little to do in the role of news director Sig Mickelson and did little with it.

As most people today are acquainted with the 1950s through black-and-white images, the decision to film in black-and-white also feels appropriate, and helps the documentary footage to blend in seamlessly with the filmed actors. The only real failing of the movie is the lack of real drama. Throughout, Murrow and the gang are seen to have the upper hand, although they sweat about the potential consequences of every action. The slice of history, the ideas presented concerning the proper role of news media, and the terrific performances all more than make up for this, however, and I strongly recommend this film to those who lived through the McCarthy era and to those, such as myself, who only have witnessed it in the rear view mirror.

Big Jim McLain (1952)

Propaganda with The Duke

[3/10 · 10 July 2005]

Anyone who doesn't believe that the US engages in propaganda needs to see this film. This film, made during the McCarthy era with the aid of the US government, seems like it could have been scripted by Joseph McCarthy himself. John Wayne and James Arness are HUAC investigators out to break up a communist cell in Hawaii. There is no actual discussion of what communism IS, only that it is pure evil and must be stopped at all costs. The pair take the time to visit aging ma and pa farmers who give what is supposed to be a heart-rending account of how their son turned to communism, bit the scene only evokes laughter. Hilarious dialogue includes the Duke's line, "I wanted to hit you, but now I see you're a little guy. That's the difference between us -- we don't hit the little guy." While I am giving this film a rating of 3 out of 10, I actually recommend seeing it. The rating is based on the quality of the film, but this unabashedly gung ho movie definitely fits in the "so bad it's good" category.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Documentary, despite taking a stance

[9/10 · 18 July 2004]

It should surprise no one that Bush supporters have widely attacked this film as "full of lies" and "not a documentary." Some have even inaccurately stated that Michael Moore "admitted" that it is not a documentary. In preface to my own comments of the film, I would like to set the record straight: documentaries OFTEN take sides, and Michael Moore has repeatedly said that Fahrenheit 9/11 IS a documentary, albeit one with a point of view. Also, please don't say that the film is full of lies (or that "half of this movie is probably incorrect," as one IMDB reviewer said) unless you are willing to show concrete examples.

My observations:

Fahrenheit 9/11 does an excellent job of pointing out some of the major problems with Bush's invasion of Iraq that have largely escaped (at least until recently) coverage in the mainstream media. Moore shows the Bush administration's efforts to create a connection in Americans' minds between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq, then plays them off against later statements by the same individuals that Iraq was never connected with those attacks. He demonstrates that much evidence countered White House claims of on-going weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in Iraq and how subsequent searches for WMD evidence vindicated the dissenters. In the most powerful part of his film, Moore speaks with the family of a soldier killed in Iraq, with the mother showing alternately grief and outrage over the death that need not have occurred. Moore also discusses how close friends of Bush have profited tremendously as a result of the invasion.

Another strong point of the film describes the poor White House performance on terrorism prior to 9/11 and poor response on 9/11. The White House failed to hold any meetings with their terrorism task force prior to the 9/11 attacks, failed to act against hijacked planes that remained in the air -- in one case, for hours -- after the initial impact on the World Trade Center, and allowed members of the bin Laden family to fly around the country in preparation to leave the United States during a time when all other civilian air traffic was grounded. Moore describes all of this and more.

Not everything in the film works, however. The first part of the film deals with the 2000 election debacle in Florida, describing the series of steps that disenfranchised voters and led to Bush's "victory." While the criticisms of the process in Florida are accurate and many viewers may be unaware of some of the details of the fiasco, this subject is quite separate from the main topic of the film and is better handled in columns and books by Greg Palast or in the documentary "Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election."

While closer to the point, Moore also misses the mark by focusing on the Carlyle Group: a corporate entity uniting George Bush, Sr. and others close to George W. Bush with Saudi Arabian oil interests. While the issue of the Carlyle Group merits scrutiny, the group does not have clear connections to 9/11 or to US response, and no policy statements from the group that would confirm suspicions were offered. A better case could be made in reference to the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which Moore ignored entirely. PNAC's members fill the administrations upper echelon, and they have publicly available position papers arguing that the US should aggressively use its position as the world's only superpower to support US "interests" around the world.

Perhaps the most quintessentially Michael Moore section of the film deals with Moore approaching members of Congress and asking them to send their own children into battle in Iraq as a sign of good faith. The effort is met with predictable responses, as Congressmen alternatively express their incredulity or avoid Moore entirely. As entertaining as this and some other moments are, the film's best feature is Moore's maturation as a documentarian in the more serious, hard-hitting segments of the film.

Moore casts a wide net in Fahrenheit 9/11 -- at times too wide -- ending up with a film with far more hits than misses and provides much information not known to most Americans even today. Isn't that what a documentary should do?

Diabolique (1955)

DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME WITH THE REMAKE!!!!

[10/10 · 14 December 2003]

Les Diabloiques is perhaps the finest of the film noir genre. Simone Signoret is best remembered for her femme fatale role in this stylish, suspenseful film. Henri-Georges Clouzot beat out none other than Alfred Hitchcock for the rights to the novel from which Les Diaboliques was adapted (by Clouzot). Hitchcock could scarcely have done better with the material.

Above all, however, I would urge people to see this original version and NOT the 1996 American remake with Sharon Stone taking on Signoret's role. If you have seen the remake but not the original, please go back and see how good this film was with Clouzot's masterful script and direction and shot in glorious black & white. A comparison of the two provides a wonderful illustration of how the script, while certainly of great importance, is not the final determining factor on how a film turns out. Direction and acting make all the difference here.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

To Quote Shakespeare ...

[4/10 · 12 September 2003]

"It is a tale told by an idiot -- full of sound and fury and signifying nothing." Luhrmann seems to be obsessed with camera and editing techniques and oddity for no particular reason. The modern songs immediately take you out of the intended setting, and all of the glitz is just a distraction from the fact that Luhrmann and Pearce must have written the screenplay during an all-night drinking session. Why, oh why, could they not have tried giving us the real Moulin Rouge? It would have been much more enjoyable than this half-baked concoction.

The Matrix (1999)

A thinking man's action film

[9/10 · 12 September 2003]

The Matrix works on many levels. If you are simply looking for an action film, it is one of the best. If you love great visuals, the Matrix has them. Look beyond the surface, however, and you will find the true value of this film. There is so much there for the intellectually curious. Discussions of this sci-fi classic lead to the question of the nature of reality, when you can truly say you know something, whether ignorance is truly bliss, potential pitfalls of technological advancement, environmental costs of war, etc. For those familiar with Plato's Parable of the Cave, The Matrix may have particular relevance, as Neo's companions have difficulty in seeing the reality rather than the shadows. Finally, The Matrix is also a classic Messiah tale, and references to the Biblical tales abound.

It also bears mention that the story line of The Matrix has allowed the action sequences to take place in a world that not only allows you to suspend disbelief but actually encourages you to do so. Inside the matrix, the only limits to what is possible are the limits of what your mind can conceive. Take the red pill and enjoy the ride.

The Case of the Mukkinese Battle-Horn (1956)

Brilliant comic short

[8/10 · 7 September 2003]

Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan display their comic talents in this brilliant short. Full of sight gags and inspired puns, this film is guaranteed to keep you laughing. If you get a chance to see this inspired lunacy, take advantage of it, as it is not available on DVD or VHS and is rarely shown anywhere. You may not get a second chance.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)

The best ever crime drama

[10/10 · 13 March 2003]

This outstanding courtroom drama, adapted from an Agatha Christie play, contains some of the finest performances I have ever seen, particularly from Marlene Dietrich, Charles Laughton, and Elsa Lanchester. The only disappointment was the performane of Tyrone Power, who was the second choice for the role after William Holden turned out to be unavailable. Also a treat were Francis Compton as the judge and Una O'Connor as the elderly lady testifying against Power.

In addition to the generally high level of acting performances, especially from Dietrich, the writing was top drawer, including some fine twists with a surprise ending that should not be revealed before watching this must see classic.

Chicago (2002)

Good, but not perfect

[7/10 · 5 January 2003]

Chicago has a lot of style. The costumes, songs, coreography, lighting, etc., are all wonderful. Queen Latifah and Catherine Zeta-Jones perform well and the script is solid. Renée Zellweger is great in the comic moments but a bit weak in the dance numbers. The biggest failing, however, is Richard Gere. His dancing is horrible and the ADR dubbing on him is amazingly obvious. (ADR is also quite noticeable in some of Zellweger's scenes.) If the producers had hired Kevin Spacey (who was reportedly considered for the part of Billy Flynn), this would probably have been a much better film.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

A shadow of its predecessor

[7/10 · 21 December 2002]

After the wonderful job that Peter Jackson, cast, and crew did on LOTR: The Fellowship of the Rings, I eagerly looked forward to seeing The Two Towers. Unfortunately, all is not well in Middle Earth. Much of the magic of part one of the series has vanished from part two, leaving in its wake what is for the most part a medieval epic. There are some fantasy elements still present: Nazgul riding dragons, Treebeard, etc., but much of the film deals with the realm of men battling with swords and with arrows. The Two Towers is, to be sure, amongst the finest medieval epics ever made, but it lacks the charm of The Fellowship. Still, it is worth viewing and forms a necessary part of the saga that is The Lord of the Rings, and I would recommend that people who enjoyed the earlier film watch The Two Towers if only to prepare for The Return of the King -- just be prepared to take the film on its own merits, not on expectations based upon its predecessor.

Chicks in White Satin (1993)

Great doc on same-sex union

[9/10 · 9 November 2002]

This Oscar nominated documentary short follows a pair of women through their commitment ceremony and the planning that precedes it. Sometimes poignant, sometimes amusing, this beautiful film shows the couple as nothing more or less than two people in love who are committing to a lifetime together. It would be excellent viewing for those struggling to accept a friend's of family member's coming out.

Minority Report (2002)

Full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing

[4/10 · 18 August 2002]

I can't believe that the film I saw was the same one that IMDBers have been giving such good ratings. While the special effects were excellent, they were often effects that made no sense, which is also true of the plot line. Two computers in the same small high-tech room more than 50 years in the future use removable media to communicate rather than being networked. Anderton (the greatly overrated Tom Cruise) could have simply hid out in the wilds for 36 hours and shown the warrant against him to be baseless rather than suffering an eye transplant and risk capture or worse to find the "minority report" on him. The "precog" Agatha, Anderton, and Burgess (Max von Sydow) all admit that individuals have a choice while the latter two also insist that the future crimes are predestined -- just one of many examples of the film defying its own logic. I could mention others, but some of the more egregious would be spoilers for those who do not heed my warning against seeing this film.