Reviews written by registered user
nomad472002

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
20 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Far from Home (2014) (TV)
A nice, gentle movie, 23 April 2017
7/10

For those that do not want or need an adrenaline rush. Contains no pyrotechnics, shooting, (with sparks), or explosions. There are a couple of sub-plots involved, which come to light slowly. Und Stefanie von Pfetten is lovely to look at. Stunning, even. The acting is decent, the story plausible. I enjoyed the movie.

Horrible, horrible, horrible, 9 March 2017
1/10

I started watching this episode today, for the fourth time. The glare from every direction, (the sun can not shine from both sides of the cockpit at the same time) was so annoying, I had to turn it off after :17 minutes. I don't recall having noticed it, in my first three viewings.

I don't know why they think that these "special effects" add to the program. It doesn't.

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Very interesting, despite a fundamental flaw in the underlying premise, 28 May 2015
8/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This case has a fundamental flaw, in that it should never have come to trial. The prosecution theory was that the defendant killed Carl Davis to conceal her other crimes. In point of fact, she had not committed any other crimes.

As far as Carl Davis believed, she was Fern Driscoll. He had no knowledge that she was in fact Millie Crest, and that she was wanted for embezzlement. He had no substantive reason to believe that she was driving the car, which belonged to the believed-to-be-dead Millie Crest. He was there to get the letters, to which the real Fern Driscoll had legal right of possession, and to which neither Carl Davis nor Senator Baylor had any legal right. Thus the prosecution theory falls apart.

Someone entered the premises in an illegal attempt to obtain those letters. Anyone in lawful and peaceful possession of a residence has every legal right to defend themselves against a known or unknown assailant. There was no murder, only a lawful act of self-defense.

There should never have been a trial.

"That stupid lieutenant", 7 March 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

What an iconic line. It seems that's what most of the program's villains think of Columbo, at least at first, until they begin to catch on. Milland's character made the mistake of continuing to believe that the lieutenant was stupid. The look on his face, when he realizes he has been caught, is priceless. The relief on the part of the woman he tried to frame is palpable.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people are willing to commit murder, and frame someone else, then go on to live and enjoy their lives on their ill-gotten gains.

Well done episode.

0 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
An irritating, laboured mess, 21 December 2013
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The first third of this movie was irritating, the second third was mildly amusing, and the final third was downright tedious.

I didn't even find the premise to be plausible, in that this to-be divorcée was allowing her secretary to run her life for her. Rich people live in a different world. They are accustomed to telling people what to do, not to having people tell them what to do.

Possible spoiler to follow: I also didn't buy the cliché about how easily people assume that someone is mentally unbalanced. Just because someone believes there is a plot afoot, does not automatically mean they are a mental case. It's not like no one has ever plotted against anyone for financial gain.

I didn't enjoy this movie. I ought to have heeded the other reviews. I wish I had skipped it.

9 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
I didn't like this episode, 4 December 2013
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Contains possible spoilers. First of all, it was as predictable as a sunrise. Secondly, it entirely improbable. Thirdly, it was poorly handled. Here they are, transporting one of the most infamous serial killers to be executed the following morning at Kingston Penitentiary. I found this implausible. Firstly, I found it implausible that he would be transported the night before his scheduled execution. He would have been transferred relatively soon after sentencing. Why not execute him at the Don Jail? There was a scaffold there, and executions did take place there.

I also found it implausible that only Inspector Brackereid was armed, and with a double-barrelled shotgun at that. They all should have been armed.

The ending was purely Keystone Kops. I found it ridiculous.

0 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Lame, implausible flick, 30 June 2012
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This review is replete with spoilers. The plot-line of this movie is ridiculous. It begins with the car going into the drink, and the voice-over saying something like, "They think I'm dead. I'll have to stay 'dead'". Why? Why not come forward and tell everyone what has happened? She thinks they won't believe her? A quick examination of the car will reveal that it's been tampered with.

Another major plot hole is where she flees to another town and then acts like Richard Kimble. She hasn't committed any crime, so why is she so afraid of everyone, especially the police? Then, the husband manages to convince the fellow who's been dogging her that she is "ill". Why is Duff so ready to believe that she is "ill"? I suppose it's understandable, since no one has ever murdered a spouse for gain.

Then, when the husband finally gets his clutches on her, he informs her that he is going to put her in an institution, because she is "ill". It can't be that easy to put someone in an institution just because it is to someone else's benefit.

The whole thing is a crock.

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Worst aviation movie I have ever seen, 10 March 2010
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've never seen an aviation movie this bad. There was so much nonsense.

1."Over and out". No pilot ever says this, since "Over" and "Out" are contradictory. "Over" means "message ended, awaiting your reply". "Out" means, "Message ended, no reply expected".

2. When an engine stops, the wing does not dip on that side. Engines pull an airplane forward. It's the wings that create lift.

3. When power is lost because one or two engines are out, a pilot would NEVER call for 30 degrees flaps, they just add more drag.

4. When engines fail, that does not cause the whole airplane to shake.

5. Pilots do not lean to one side or the other in their seats.

6. No pilot would ever consider ditching at night when daylight is a short time away.

7. When all the passengers in a plane rush from one side to the other, the plane does not bank the other way.

8. The co-pilot does not need to repeatedly call out airspeed. The captain can see the airspeed on the panel.

9. Before ditching, all props would be feathered to reduce the risk of nose over or other damage.

All in all, unsatisfactory.

nomad

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
could have been so much better, 14 October 2008
6/10

if only they had stuck to the facts, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The 'love story' embellishment (as if a story of this magnitude needs any embellishment whatever), as well as the rest of the fictional subplots detracts from, rather than add to the story.

There was no one named samuelson involved in this event. The 'love story' is not plausible. No gentile woman in her right mind would have become involved with a Mormon in those days. What, because he's good looking, and good with horses? He would not have been interested in her either. He might well have gotten his throat cut for apostasy, for getting involved with a gentile.

That scene between the brothers and the girl towards the end was so contrived that even a person not familiar with the events would not find it plausible.

They ought to have just stuck to the real story, and not mixed fact with fiction in a lame attempt at tugging at our heart-strings, as if the murder of 120 men, women and children were not enough to do so.

nomad

Swept Away (2002)
1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Better than the ratings would indicate, 27 September 2008
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After seeing this movie last night, I can see why the ratings were so bad. There are no car chases, explosions, and not a single shot fired, save the one from the flare gun. Sorely missed, were the excruciatingly annoying "fade-to-whites" and fast cuts that ensure that nothing stays on screen for more than a split second. I also missed the nauseating hand-held camera shots.

What fools. They ought to have had at least one scene with Stallone oder der Schwarzenegger blasting away 4,000 rounds with a machine gun. And that ending! Could "Guido" not have shot that helicopter down with a LAWS rocket???

The producers of this film ought to have known that the leisurely pacing, and lack of any and all of the above would not penetrate the drug-induced haze of the audience. What were they thinking???

However, if you don't need the gratuitous violence, etc., and care anything at all about romance, you'll find this a pleasant way to spend an evening.

This movie rates a solid 6.5 on the Richter scale.

Nomad


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]