Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Click on the "View" box with the four squares and you'll get the pictures either four across or three across. Three across is the way it needs to be to view the pages properly. To change four across to three across hold down the "Ctrl" button and press the "-" (minus/underscore) button to reduce four to three. Then the triplets can be viewed quickly as groups.
In all sincerity, I love ALMOST <*(caveat) everyone on this list.
New entries are back-loaded to the last pages for later insertion during the "Major Overhaul".
Because it's pain I haven't put anyone on the front page for more than a year but this was such a perfect match I made the effort.
*see The White House
One easy way to peruse the list is by clicking the box with four solid squares and then if searching for something specific go to "list order" and make it "A to Z" or "name" to put them in alphabetical order but unfortunately it count "A"s and "The"s as the first word so there's an awful lot of "The"s. They're an alphabetical section on their own. By running the mouse over the movie poster icon the film's facts are displayed. (If you didn't already know)
I'm eliminating any performance of Queen Elizabeth I Bette Davis, Flora Robson and the others will have to make their bones some other way.
Bewitched Stalag 17 Vlad is as such a non-existent movie, for now. The Razor's Edge Lolita Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Arsenic and Old Lace Touch of Evil Charley Varrick No Highway in the Sky The Thomas Crown Affair Get Smart Lost in Space The Fourth Tower of Inverness is as such a non-existent movie, for now. Batman A Thousand Clowns Leprechaun
Mimic 2 (2001)
Your heroine (Alix Koromzay) and hero (Bruno Campos) shouldn't be creepier than your monster. THAT'S a casting mistake and you shouldn't use an entomologist as a casting agent. The whole cast creeps and so does the story. I can comfortably say Jean de Segonzac should stick (like a bug on a windshield) with TV. The only reason it's not a 1 star rating is for cinematographer Nathan Hope I get another chance to shoot a movie. Sorry IMDb, this movie doesn't deserve the 10 line minimum but IMDb wouldn't let me submit the review until I wrote 10 lines so BBBZZZ ZZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ ZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZ
The Anderson Tapes (1971)
Heh, Heh, Heh
I can't understand the lack of enthusiasm for this wonderful crime meller by "ensemble" director Sidney Lumet. Crime mellers or thrillers always have the genre inherit problem of plot holes and plausibility factors, even the best of them. It seems this is what most of the detractors are complaining about (Laura with an 8.1 rating has far bigger plot holes and plausibility factors). For me this has less than most which is only one of the bounty of pluses in this sharply executed excursion. A Quincy Jones score, perfectly interwoven acerbic humor (my favorite flavor), Howard Hawks like timing and a cast to die for are some of the other pluses. About the rich cast, there Alan King, Norman Rose, Margaret Hamilton, Christopher Walken's fabulous debut, Dyan Cannon's best role (small as it was), Richard B Schull, Max Showalter, Conrad Bain, Janet Ward, Meg Myles, Paula Truman, Reid Cruickshanks, Val Avery, Martin Balsam (having the time of his life), Ralph Meeker, Dick Williams, Stan Gottlieb, Paul Benjamin, Scott Jacoby, Tom Signorelli and even Garrett Morris all do marvelous turns. This for me is Connery's best role. This is a movie rich in characters.
The plot is just enough to support the performances and action and that's all that's required to get this ball rolling. Connery and a few of his jail mates are released from prison, Connery after ten years. He's a thief and has a job in mind as soon as he gets out. It seems that in the ten years since he went in the world has been wired for surveillance and everybody is listening to and looking at everybody. Sean goes to see his old girlfriend Dyan and we're off to the races. Another plus is perfect pacing. As it has in all crime mellers through the ages this helps plug those plot holes and bridge those plausibility gaps. For me this movie is a lot of fun.
7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)
My favorite movie as a kid.
Many critics thought little of this movie as a whole and would instead cite Randall's tour-de-force as the single positive. I know someone who feels the film pales in comparison with the book but I don't think he was really familiar with the movie. I have yet to finish the book as I am possibly the slowest reader in existence. I am on the other hand very familiar with the movie. I've scene it 30 times at the very least. As a 8 year old I saw it at least three times at the theater, I was a buff from a very early age. I've seen it a couple times a year for last four years and I saw it two weeks ago. It stands the test of time. For me, it's a close tie with 1937's The Prince and the Pauper as the greatest "kids" movie ever. Both are perfectly thrilling entertainment with remarkably deep messages for audiences of all ages. Nobody can argue with the Academy's nominees for that year but it seems cruel that there wasn't room for Tony. It's a beautiful, heart-felt performance that never tarnishes. I've read enough of the book to know that the movie has been "Hollywoodized" but the basic lesson is not lost. It's one of the greatest movie ever made on the order 1924's The Thief of Bagdad or 1938's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer or 1941's The Devil and Daniel Webster or 1956's Forbidden Planet.
The Chases of Pimple Street (1934)
Hate to pop your pimple
Loud and annoying does not equal comedy. Charley Chase had a great silent film career but unfortunately sound came along and Charley just became obnoxious. Mighty low brow stuff that's poorly executed even by 3 Stooges standards. Inexplicably high IMDb rating.
IMDb wants ten lines of text for this review but frankly there isn't enough to this curiously high rated dreck to write ten lines about.
The terrible direction is credited to Chase but nobody's taking claim for writing this witless, vapid, tired (tired by Vaudville standards) tripe. What could possibly be the mystery of the high rating? This is just stupid. Funny's funny and this ain't funny.
The Babymakers (2012)
Jay's direction is better than his performance
I rented this movie and before I watched it I thought I'd check what the masses thought and I almost didn't watch the movie because of all the negative reviews. The only thing I could hope for is that it would be one of those movies like The Road to Wellville where a lot of people who are very uptight about there bodies can't handle the bawdy humor. Well, that's what happened. The Babymakers is very funny, well paced, the characters are likable and humor ranges all over the place, it's in the dialog, the visuals and the timing. I'd have to say this is one of the more likable comedies along with Role Models, Office Space, Away We Go, Sex Drive, Walk Hard and luckily it's not at all like Wedding Crashers, Bridesmaids, Good Luck Chuck or The Hangover.
The one big change I would have made was to keep Jay behind the camera and if his character was really necessary it would have played funnier with Gerry Bednob.
I wasn't going to watch this movie because all these negative reviews made me think I would see a big failure of Jay's direction and that wouldn't be any fun at all. Jay's direction is terrific.
And for reference, I'm offended by the toilet humor in Enchanted but I think the toilet humor in Not Another Teen Movie is hysterical. It's a matter of propriety. It's not right in Enchanted. It's fine in NATM. What's done in this movie is just fine for it.
Joan of Arc (1948)
I don't need 45 minutes more of this...
To start with this is one of the most miscast movies ever. I gasped when I saw Ray Teal in armor. Ward Bond, Gene Lockhart, Francis L Sullivan, Morris Ankrum and J Carroll Naish as Frenchmen, who was responsible for that? Bergman was atrocious. Her performance was bland and doesn't hold a candle next to Jovovich's torture in The Messenger or Seberg's vibrancy in Saint Joan. Both Milla and Jean were mercilessly crucified, or should I say burned at the stake, by critics but I much rather watch them than endure Bergman's monochrome recitation. I think Ferrer was possibly hampered by the temperance of the day. What he did was possibly as weird for its day as what Widmark did in a more enlightened time. The only thing duller than Bergman's "acting" was Fleming's direction which was completely void of imagination. Fabulous music but maybe a bit loud, beautiful Technicolor, fine costume and set design don't cover up these major flaws and I don't need 45 minutes more to tell the apple is spoiled. TCM is at this moment showing the 100 minute version. I don't know why they're doing that but 45 extra minutes isn't going to change Bergman's performance or the casting decisions. Harsh, but we live in harsh times.