Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
A Walk in the Sun (1945)
2 hour movie, seemed like 1 hour it was so good!
My version of this movie was slightly under 2 hours, but surprisingly enough went so quickly, telling me that it was an excellent movie. Fox didn't have too many good movies around that time. Rossen did well with the dialogue which probably was an excellent book, Milestone was good as the director, the acting was also excellent. I'm sure the movie projected what it was actually like during that time. About the only thing that was a negative to me was that it didn't seem like it was taking place in Italy, or what Italy would look like to me. Not that I think that it actually took place in Italy. It looked more like it took place at one of the California ranches, which is where it probably was filmed.
Evil in the Bayou (2003)
A Complete waste of money!!!!
It must be nice for someone to have so much money that you can make a completely terrible, poorly made movie, just for vanity's sake. The lead actor, producer, director (?), writer (?) lady is nice looking enough, who evidently has a lot of money to throw around. Unfortunately with dismal results. In some scenes the actors have to turn sideways to move out of the action (not enough room to move around on the super small, cheesy sets). The whole story is taken from bits and pieces of other movie that the director had probably seen and amateurishly put together with the final results being a total mish-mash, poorly directed with some not-too convincing acting for the most part, with some sickening kissing scenes thrown in. The ending was completely unconvincing, totally contrived with no sense at all. The actor that comes to the rescue at the climax of the movie, who had just drank the poisoned wine, (a poison wine when given to everyone else in the movie results in being drugged and in-operative), suddenly jumps up to save the day (?). To add accident to injury: this lady is making more movies. It must be nice!
Rocky Mountain Mystery (1935)
Excellent Mystery set in the West
I quite enjoyed this movie. Randoph Scott was quite good as the agent sent to investigate things (I can understand how Cary Grant was supposed to be smitten by him at the time). I liked the production values for this 1935 film, it helped me know more about 1935. I enjoyed the story and was mildly taken by surprise as to the "who done-it". The old lady was a "hoot", I understand she was quite an actress in her day and quite a personality also: a movie was made about her and her husband, for some unusual reason. Loved watching Ann Sheridan and all the other actors (seemed like a stage play) who all seemed to have long and interesting careers. Loved the scene in Hawaii for some reason, maybe it tied up all the loose ends, happy ending, etc. I also prefer the "Rocky Mountain Mystery" title as opposed to "The Fighting Westerner" title that I bought.
Very boring and extremely slow paced
If the director/writer thought that he had an interesting family, I'm here to tell him he didn't. This type of family has been done so much better in countless other movies, with so much more style and pizazz. I didn't care a hoot for any of this film's characters, their all so grim and I had no sympathy for any of them, (a bunch of losers). How come the guy with the gun shoots the three leads and gets away with it, no one knows that the gun just has blanks in it, so it's definitely a crime and then the story just goes on to what the director might have thought might be a funny bit of irony by setting him up with the terribly over-acting Milla, this guy should have been in jail, the character that is. The actors all did a valiant job in spite of the dismal script.
This movie is plain Crap!
How can the heroes just walk into top secret offices at will. It says in the IMDb notes that Reitman took over the script to make it more of a comedy: he didn't succeed, it's totally lame and not funny at all. If rectal humor is supposed to be funny then I'm out of the loop, happily. The mall scenes are just not funny, the guy singing is just bad and the story is just trying too hard, the heroes just bust into the rifle rack and take over the area while the security guards just run amok, not knowing what to do (they probably read the script), where were the police? The best part of the movie was the actor named Levine, he's quite a screen presence, if you're good you can overcome all sorts of script deficiencies. It's mind boggling to me that the writers thought that a alien with diarrhea is funny and then depict it so descriptively and sickeningly (if they spent more of their time on the story?????). I understand Ducovney took this picture over a Star Wars flick (I know: a big fish in a small pond is better than a small fish in a big pond), bad choice.
Double Whammy (2001)
What a lousy movie!
The director/writer should of gotten a co-writer, because he trys to get to some-where in his film, but falls short, maybe someone elses imput would have made the difference between a lousy script and a funny movie. I've seen Leary on different talk shows and he always seems to be on the edge, ready to explode, an angry person, always having to put some one down to try to be funny and make a joke. Maybe if he smiled a bit in this movie it might have seemed like more of a comedy, (talk about a grim dude). The writing was just poor and the direction at least in the fast food place was missing something, clumsily staged. And what-about the young girl getting away with attempted murder (we're supposed to believe she's repented (she crys) and there-fore pays her dues to society). What's the title mean? What's the eyeball mean? Why is the hero? smoking dope (I guess the director does), is that cool? Hurley's secretary could have been a bit more animated, instead of being a zombie, and made a more interesting character. Dimitri the cop was a pretty sharp dresser, his clothes and Leary were by some big time designer, although you'd never know it by Leary's wardrobe. Hurley always looks great and Bucimmi's character could have been better realized, what he had was nothing. In fact the whole story could have been better realized, tighter and connected somehow. Maybe the next effort will be better and not cost me $5.00 for the DVD.
Rage at Dawn (1955)
A fine western, Scott and Tucker shine!
First a bit of trivia: In the opening segment as the Reno Boys are riding into the Indiana Territory township for the robbery you can see an American Flag (with 48 stars I imagine) in the background with a California state flag underneath it, with it's bear in the center. The movie was shot in part in California's Columbian Historic Park in 1955..................... Anyway, I thought the movie was excellent and realistic, well told, the writing was excellent and well acted by everyone involved. What a superlative cast: Tucker was excellent, as evil as I ever saw him in any movie, Buchanan, a wonderful actor, was his sly self to perfection, as usual, Mala Powers as beautiful as usual in what I consider an unnecessary part (I wonder if this was a true part of the story), in 1955 you had to have a love interest to sell movie tickets or they supposed it to be. You also had Jimmy Lydon (Henry Aldrich), Arthur Space, Myron Healey, Kenneth Tobey, Denver Pyle, all familiar faces even today, doing what they did best; act, under the fine direction of Tim Whelan, creating what I would think 1866 was like. Also with great music by Paul Sawtell and photographed beautifully by Ray Rennahan. A Fine film that held my interest.
Olive Juice (2001)
LAME, LAME, LAME, in other words, LAME!
This movie is just awful. I can just imagine the "behind the scenes" dialogue while making this picture: "this is going to be such a cute movie, the story is so cute, the dialogue is so cute, the actors are so cute, the acting is so cute, no the acting is so dynamic, it's going to be such a hit with the audience: being so piquant and lovely, and yet so comical........" I don't know too much about the Back Street Boys, except that they're famous, now I realize they must have made some money and thought they were going to make a classic film, they were wrong, money doesn't always translate into good taste. The only thing going right for this movie, in spite of the script was the actor that played the lawyer/fiancé, otherwise the acting was non existent. The actor who played the lead was a little too old to be playing this type of "dork", he elicited no charm what-so ever, which was supposed to be the desired aim I suppose. An example being the sequence at the girls house after the first date to the bar, which was rather lame as far as the story and especially the acting goes. The actress who plays the lead was pretty, but was "no actor", the mother had the handicap of delivering bad dialogue, as did all the actors for that fact. The writing was "sooo" atrocious, I realize that screenwriters have a certain latitude when writing the story but, this story was pushing the envelope a wee bit too much: The mother starts in on a long diatribe on the matter of love the moment she meets the husband to be, also the cooking host on TV says this is a "family show" but continually uses the "F" word, or can you just imagine a man stalking a house in the bushes in broad daylight in an upscale neighborhood and all the neighbor could say was "you asshole", also how did they get the time to fix the truck and also not be seen, so it could stop on cue and how did Keeler get the time to get into the back of the van; where were the police and why was the couple moving themselves, don't lawyers make any money in Florida? (silly question). The passing the stone scenario was especially supercilious and a little too "ick/ooh-ish". What was the bit about the Back Street Guy as a DJ about, was that acting or what? Also why was the Host at the bar portrayed as being swishy, most gay guys are not swishy, stereo-typing for a cheap laugh I guess. And the bit about the cutesy type dog store was sort of gagging, but as I read the credits, was or is a real store in Florida, (up-chuck time). If you're going to spend a lot of money to make a decent movie, be sure to get a good writer and director, otherwise as in this case you wind up with this type of movie which I think can be best be described as "LAME".
It was a good pay check for all involved, only!
It begins with Claire Trevor supposedly being a "crack" police officer, but the director has her all but aced out of the scene by two massive men in front of her, if she was so sharp she would have busted her way forward, front and center. From here the story gets downright silly, she goes undercover, she's suddenly a chorus girl in Mexico trying to infiltrate Raymond Burr and his gang. Then it gets sillier, Fred MacMurray is portrayed as a bad guy (we know he's a cop) who pushes his way into Burr's lair and literally kidnaps Claire. They're headed for the American border with drugs with a plan to catch the crooks, they start off from Mexico, but for some reason they have to stop and stay over night at a hotel, now it gets even sillier with the false 50's morals of the day; Claire gets scared when she fines herself alone in the hotel room with Fred, even though she's 40 years old, oh my, she somehow still has her gun to protect herself and still has her police mini=camera (pretty heady for a 50's flick), whats wrong with Fred, isn't he smart enough to frisk her to begin with. The whole plot is getting rather stupid with F and C outsmarting the Mexican police with a corpse in the car, etc. then have to make an impromptu plane landing on the coastline, not to mention the heat and dust of the whole trip, of course still looking like they just stepped out of Vogue, they stay at a class hotel and then get into what's supposed to be a "cute" bit of dialogue of who's a cop, your a cop, no you're a cop, pretty lame, even for a lame picture. The whole picture is a study in how to make a fast buck, (no problem there), I'm surprised there was a writing credit. All in all it was a pleasure to see the beautiful Claire Trevor on the heels of her Oscar win getting a nice wardrobe and Fred looking like his "My Three Son" self getting a nice trip to Mexico and Charles Lane acting like he's getting ready for the "Lucy" show, which he plays about the same role as he did here (unfortunately this wasn't supposed to be a comedy). The good news is that I only had to pay a dollar, plus tax for this DVD at the 99 cent store. See everybody wins. Anyways, that's Hollywood for you in the 50's, with the real sad and bad back drop of the McCarthy and Nixon Era fiasco's, not to mention the Korean War. Not a good time for some, like today......oops! Did someone say the Iraq War and same sex marriages!
The Château (2001)
I find it difficult to call this film a Comedy!
Of all the things I could say about this film, it would'nt be that it could be called a comedy. Most of the characters are hostile, the girl was beautiful and could turn a gay guy straight, (almost), but there's no redeaming features about the other leads. I could'nt help thinking that Paul Rudd was acting, I thought he was supposed to be a good actor and the Rex character was un-necessarily angry, why all the mfs and s words, otherwise he seemed very classy. The American big shot who was going to buy the chateau was hostile. The real estate agent was wonderful. I liked the actor that played Jean, I see where he has a long list of credits to his resume. Overall the dealogue was rather force and strained (there probably was no script and the actors were "winging it") and when suddenly and out of the blue went into a diatribe about "fags" for no reason at all, it let me know that the writers (outline) really had nothing worth while to say and they are probably very shallow people. On the plus side, the French country side as always (and in film) is beautiful. The cinematography and set design were possitives, The overall feeling was warm and enchanting. Thanks!