Reviews written by
edmundmuskie

Page 1 of 18:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
178 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Robert Duvall as the Apostle, 25 September 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watched this movie a few years after it came out. I am not a person that is too religious, but this movie touched me. Robert Duvall, who wrote produced, directed, and took the lead role in this film proved himself to be a true master of cinema. There is not one weak moment in this film. Duvall plays a minister whose world is shattered after a sad string of events. He commits a crime of passion, and runs from the law. While on the run Sonny, the name of the preacher comes across a new path. I don't know why this movie hit me so much, it just did. The movie is incredibly low budget. The driving force in this film is the acting, and the writing. There is not a week moment in this film. How it is Robert Duvall could come up with this movie is beyond me. He wrote, produced, starred and directed this film, and he did a superior job. This man was nominated for an Oscar, and he lost to Jack Nicholson, for as good as it gets. Nicholson did a fine job in his role, buy Duvall deserved the Oscar, he did better in his part.

The movie is just so simple and innocent in a way. There is nothing too complicated to this movie it is just a simple story told in a brilliant manner. The simplicity of this film is overwhelming in a way, in an era of these incredibly bloated films, whether they are phony epics, or these silly teen films they always are too complicated, and many times pointless. But this movie, with a fraction of the budget of a huge Hollywood film manages to be much more entertaining and insightful than almost any Hollywood film. One thing that makes this film so interesting is the supporting cast. Robert Duvall has picked an excellent cast for his film, they look, act and make their parts out excellently. They contribute nicely to this effort and make it that much better. Billy Bob Thornton has a small part but it is powerful and excellent. His small part contributes a lot to this film.

What also amazed me about this film is how it kept you guessing. (SPOILERS)

At first you didn't know how legitimate Sonny was. You really couldn't tell if he was a con-man, or legitimately felt if he was good intentioned, and that was the mystery in the first half of the film. But that was the beauty of the film. I felt like he was always unintentional, but at first he was preaching to people that didn't need his support and guidance. But as his journey progressed he did exactly what he had to do, and gave guidance to those that needed it the most. I felt like at first Sonny had a very different view of his religion from the view he had at the end. I think at first he felt like God controlled everything, and everything in his life was to appease his savior. But as time went by, as tragedy struck him personally he became much less materialistic

This movie is just excellent. I was told it was good, but not this good. It was a pleasure and a privilege to watch this film. I was taken so much by this movie, I almost cried at the end. I didn't know how it was going to end, and I was on the edge of my seat almost the whole time. This is an excellent film and I recommend it to almost anybody. For the record I did not like the Farrah Fawcett character was not cool to me. She did a good acting job but she was a real prick. I would have been p***ed at her too. I felt bad for him at first even if I didn't identify with him. Anyways this is a superior film, wonderfully emotional, delightfully energetic, excellently written, and directed by Robert Duvall and an all around excellent experience. I recommend it highly.

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Not the Flintstones, 13 September 2004

I love watching the old Flintstones, it was great, the satire, the one liners, everything was great, it really was the Simpsons for it's day. This show, which features the children of, Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble, Pebbles Flintstone, and Bamm Bamm Rubble. But this show became silly and immature, and lacked the satire and humor of the Flintstones. This is one of those shows that should have never been done. The original was very funny, and really tapped into the times, as a satire, and a cartoon clone of the Honeymooners. And the stone age references were very funny too. This show, no longer mocking the times appears to be more of a kids show. Almost all of the satire is gone, and you see too little of Fred and Barney, and too much of adult Fred and Pebbles. They just don't have the chemistry and humor of Fred and Barney. Sally Struthers tried her best to voice Pebbles, and all of the friends of the couple were just bad touches. Sometimes it is OK to do a sequel, or some sort of rendition, but the Flintstones was too priceless and funny to have something like this as some sort of addition to the original series. I'm going to stick with the original series.

Duck Amuck (1953)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Classic Looney Tunes, 25 August 2004

I am a big fan of Bugs Bunny, and the style of comedy that the Looney Tunes had with it's signature characters over the years. I never thought that in a five minute period I would laugh so hard and still think about jokes told to me in a five minute period over these many many years. But let's face it: Bugs Bunny is one of the funniest characters period, and so are all of his comrades. This cartoon, when I saw it, definitely got me, it definitely cracked me up. The ending was excellent, surprised me more than the Sixth Sense. In this cartoon Daffy Duck is in a cartoon, and inexplicably has the setting changed, and he knows why, but we don't until the end. This is one of the centerpieces for the intelligent, off-the-wall, intelligent, and unpredictable comedy that the Looney Tunes were known for is classic. This is one of the finest and best Looney Tunes episodes out there.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Will history determine the events of these men?, 15 August 2004

For those of you that have seen this film I have to admit my sympathies were with the Richard Widmark character. I loved his idealism, his drive, and his commitment to his cause. I thought he did an excellent job, and proves in this part he was a top rate actor. But his excellent acting is only one great performance in a batch of truly remarkable performances. Judgment at Nuremberg is propaganda to the point that it tries to make these trials, and the men that committed these horrible atrocities look bad. While this seems pretty decent on the surface many of these men tried, as was stated in the film would go on to work for the American government to combat communism, and the Soviet Union. This movie states that what they did was wrong, and in the 1960s this may have been one of the few pieces of entertainment that was not justifying what these men did for the sake of fighting communism. This film examines the unneeded complexities of prosecuting war criminals, and it does so in a very nice manner.

Spencer Tracy is the lead character in this film, as the judge of the minor war crimes trials. He has had many great performances, before and since this film, but this one is excellent. This cast is impeccable, and he lends class, and excellence to this already excellent film. The thing that went through my mind watching this whole movie is how could these people get by with what they did. This movie is unnerving in a way, when you see what actually happened, and when today you see so people saying that the holocaust never happened. Maximilian Schell's overzealous and ultimately unsuccessful defense for the Nazi War Criminals was more than a little rattling, and while he does startle you his performance is second to none, he is a master actor, and in one of his first big screen rolls he shows it too. This cast that came to be in this epic courtroom drama is incredible: Judy Garland, Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, and a host of others. Also an interesting point there are a number of other well-known actors who appeared here, like Werner Klemperer, who plays a Nazi War Criminal, and William Shatner, who plays a young officer that helps Tracy.

Fascinating fact about Werner Klemperer: He would later play Colonel Klink in Hogan's Heroes. In both of these roles he plays unapologetic Nazis, but he himself was a World War 2 Veteran. He said that he would play Colonel Klink as long as the Nazis lost. This movie while somewhat sensational, the point gets across. The movie is second to none in terms of quality, and ranks among the best ever. One thing about the movie is that the performances and dialogue are stiff, as was the case for the time, but the atmosphere to this film cannot be beat. The soundtrack to this film is also excellent, and helps provide the excellent atmosphere to this film. Ultimately this film lets you determine your own views, do these men need to get off to help fight communism, or do they need to face up to their crimes and their past? Perhaps it is a question not so easily answered, or as easy as it should be, in the minds of those who made such decisions.

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Good, But Lacking Something, 20 July 2004

A number of reviews said this was one of the funniest films of all time, or close to it. I watched this, anticipating a number of laughs. What I got was a well-produced, very good film that had a lot of very good moments, and was very astute to almost every little detail, but it was not very funny. This was a film by Harry Shearer, a very unique film maker, but this is not one of his better films. Best in Show was slight better. Overall if you are looking for a film that is excellently done, but not very funny this is the one to watch. The movie is a documentary, a satire on a reunion of folk groups popular in the 1960s (all fictitional) in modern day. The groups have a number of adjustments to make as they get together again, and perform again. This is a funny movie, but really lacks something, it is not that funny. Still I guess it is worth watching, if for nothing else the excellent production values, and the great cast of character actors who actually do very well here, and some good music too. But I cannot understand how everyone thought this was hilarious. There was a movie I also have a review for called Fear of a Black Hat, which is a documentary of a similar tone, except it is about gangster rap. That movie is far funnier, this movie is silly, and not always that funny. Still you can appreciate the movie for it's impeccable production values, its storyline and the acting. Fred Willard as he always is, is excellent. But for some this was one of the funniest movies ever, but to me it's no Marx Brothers.

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Forgettable Cartoon, 18 July 2004

Hanna and Barbera have made some great cartoons, and they have made some pretty bad cartoons. Count this one as one their not so good cartoons. The characters are cardboard, there is the silly one, the normal logical one, then there was the other logical one, and then the snobby one and her boyfriend. There was another guy in the group who reminded me a lot of Shaggy from Scooby Doo, and then the mean cat, and those are the characters. They would go around performing music in odd locations, and come across crimes, and bad events they would solve. There are some cartoons that are corny like this that I liked, this is just not very good. In a later cartoon they actually went to space, it was a series. This was a one joke cartoon stretched out way too far. Watch something else. This cartoon is senseless and silly.

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
What happened to Woody Allen?, 13 July 2004

Woody Allen has made some of the best and funniest films of all time. Then he made this movie. While this is not a bad movie it is not as good as the Woody Allen of old. I have not seen many of his movies recently, but films like The Curse of Jade Scorpion, Mighty Aphrodite, and Deconstructing Harry have been top-notch films. This one is not very funny. Allen's neurotic performance is completely lost on me this time, and the script seems mostly as though it is not even attempting to tell jokes. As a Hollywood director on the skids and desperately in need of a comeback success comes in the form of his ex-wife and her fiancee. The situation is complicated when he goes blind. I will admit the ending was appropriately funny, but the movie is stale, and awkward. I don't think Woody Allen is done, because his recent efforts like The Curse of Jade Scorpion and Mighty Aphrodite have been very good, but I do not know what happened here, Allen really lost his incredible wit on this film. The one interesting piece of casting was George Hamilton, who mostly was quiet in this film. I guess this is worth seeing if you are the most die-hard Woody Allen fan.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
What happened to Woody Allen?, 13 July 2004

Woody Allen has made some of the best and funniest films of all time. Then he made this movie. While this is not a bad movie it is not as good as the Woody Allen of old. I have not seen many of his movies recently, but films like The Curse of Jade Scorpion, Mighty Aphrodite, and Deconstructing Harry have been top-notch films. This one is not very funny. Allen's neurotic performance is completely lost on me this time, and the script seems mostly as though it is not even attempting to tell jokes. As a Hollywood director on the skids and desperately in need of a comeback success comes in the form of his ex-wife and her fiancee. The situation is complicated when he goes blind. I will admit the ending was appropriately funny, but the movie is stale, and awkward. I don't think Woody Allen is done, because his recent efforts like The Curse of Jade Scorpion and Mighty Aphrodite have been very good, but I do not know what happened here, Allen really lost his incredible wit on this film. The one interesting piece of casting was George Hamilton, who mostly was quiet in this film. I guess this is worth seeing if you are the most die-hard Woody Allen fan.

4 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
One of the best news shows on television right now., 4 July 2004

Meet the Press is an all around excellent show, the host, Tim Russert is a fine journalist that knows what he is talking about and he asks very tough questions. In his interview with George W. Bush he really laid it hard on him, he didn't let him get by with and stupid short-sighted answer he really made George W Bush think. (something Bush doesn't do very well) If you want to watch a substantive excellent news talk show this is the one to watch. This is hands down one of the best news shows on television. Watch this dude instead of other non-journalists like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Tim Russert is the read deal. I have seen him interview a number of people, including John Kerry, which was also a real good interview. This man knows exactly what he is talking about. His straightforward, sometimes incisive, sometimes pointed, but always insightful and intelligent style shows this man's immeasurable class and knowledge. This is one of the best news shows on television, and has been for a number of years. Here's to Tim Russert, a fine example of decent journalism in the era of lying FOX news.

7 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
Another pathetic right wing talk show host, 27 June 2004

In the tradition of dumbs*&t right wing idiots on talk television like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh comes another in the line of right wing liars. This man is a sorry Bill O'Reilly wannabe and is an idiot. He has the same viewer mail like O'Reilly does and he likes to hear the sound of his own voice. It is appropriate he is on MSNBC, another channel full of right wingers, other than Chris Matthews. One time he complained that a comic book was critical of Bush's policy in Iraq, saying the comic strip was propagandizing children. Well all of the propaganda he feeds and the right wing propaganda he feeds I don't know why he is complaining, actually I do know why because no one can disagree with any right wingers, if it isn't law yet I am pretty sure these fools in Washington will make it law soon. I have only seem a few episodes of his show, and that is all I need to see. This man has never heard f journalistic integrity and this show is nothing more than this fool's bandwagon. I guess I should be use to all of these fools on cable news networks, but they just get stupider every day, this man is proof.


Page 1 of 18:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]