Reviews written by registered user
|32 reviews in total|
This film was recently broadcast on a local station. Since I was only 4
when it was released, I had never seen it before, although I was
familiar with the title and the overall premise which was considered
controversial back then. So I decided to watch it. I figured a well
known film with Sydney Poitier and Spencer Tracy trying to make a
cultural point would be worth the time.
But the believability failed on many levels. Spencer Tracy looked old enough to be the girl's grandfather rather than her father. All race issues aside, this couple wanted to get married and had known each other for less than 2 weeks. What was the point of the Monsignor Ryan character? He could have easily been written out without affecting the story at all.
But the biggest problem is Hepburn. I'd think the real question on Prentice's parents mind wouldn't be, "Why is my son marrying a white girl?" Or, "why is my son marrying a girl he just met?" Or, "Why is there a Monsignor in the script?" Or even, "Why is Weezie working here?". The obvious question would be, "What country is your mom from and exactly what accent is that?".
Back in the day, Sesame Street did a bit called, "one of thee things is not like the other". And while watching this film the question yells at you from the screen, "What country is this lady from?". Two American families, one with an American maid living in America... but Hepburn's fake accent throughout this film is like an eternal blaring cat pee stain on a hand woven rug. Bad enough her voice sounds like she sucked down a can of helium, but that accent is like finger nails on a chalk board. And, BTW, why does she keep shaking her head "no" all the time?
First let's start with Jack Nicholson. He simply plays himself, mean,
slightly deranged, demented and angry. Demi Moore's role is totally
pointless, other than you can't have a Tom Cruise movie without a
female in a supporting role.
Just search Rich Hall's stand-up routine on Youtube about Tom Cruise movies for a better explanation... "He's a cocktail maker, a pretty good cocktail maker too. Till he has a crisis of confidence and can't make cocktails anymore. Then he meets a good looking woman who talks him into being a better cocktail maker.... Then he's a race car driver, a pretty good race car driver too. Till he has a crisis of confidence and can't race cars anymore. Then he meets a good looking woman who talks him into being a better race car driver... Then he's a jet pilot, a pretty good jet pilot too. Till he has a crisis of confidence and can't fly jets anymore. Then he meets a good looking woman who talks him into being a better jet pilot... Then he was a sports agent...
Anyway, I'm glad the screen I watched this on was only 32". Even at that size, the constant incessant series of closeups of his eyebrow (singular) were so extreme, one could count the hairs. I can't imagine having to witness his eyebrow on the big screen.
But this film does leave food for thought. It makes you step back and ask yourself... Why doesn't somebody buy Tom Cruise a pair of tweezers? Why doesn't he buy a pair? Why wouldn't an actor who makes millions not be able to afford a hot wax to clean things up a bit?
I'm totally amazed at the number of reviews raving about this film.
Almost all of them express the opposite of what I was unfortunate
enough to watch. This film is painful, boring, confusing, confined and
lacks any definable plot or purpose.
A synopsis of the film is this: stick a bunch of deranged and sickly looking women in one stage set, have them drone on about enigmatic themes with an occasional off-topic line that makes them seem like escaped mental patients. Good times huh? But wait there's more. Add in some visions, delusions of a bloody faced kid appearing in windows and reflections.
It's one of those films that you keep wondering if it will ever make any sense, but it never does. I guess some people see that as artsy or great film making. I see it as annoying and at times unbearable. Showing this film at Gitmo would be more torturous than water-boarding.
1 out of 10, because -25 isn't an option.
Apparently, some time in the late 80's a casting call went out looking
for a teenage girl with a pickle nose and a guy in his 30's who could
dance fairly well and play the role of the pedophile who seduces her.
And as a result we have this film, which is one of the worst I've ever
seen. It's not just a chick flick train wreck, it's a sick twisted
testament to pedophilia and really bad acting.
I fail to see how anyone could find any aspect of this film appealing. Well, anyone except someone with a bizarre secret fetish to watch a half clad pedophile rubbing against an under age female. And if that's their thing, they'd be better served rubbing a page from teen undergarment section of the Sears catalog against the cover of Playgirl. At least they wouldn't be subject to the cheesy 80's pop music, bad acting and cliché plot. That, and as far as I know Sears models don't have a pickle noses.
This is why I highly suspect anyone who raves about this film and would suggest they get some counseling. Pedophilia isn't entertainment, or great film making, it's a mental disorder and criminal offense. I could go on about the other elements of this movie that made me want to hurl, the bad script, bad directing and editing and especially the "music". But I'll wind it up with this: Unless you have a severe mental illness and sick fetish that enjoys seeing an ugly pickle nosed teenager being seduced and violated by a 30 year old to the worst music ever written, avoid this at all cost.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I was drawn into watching this movie because it was a mystery. Three
wives get a letter from a woman saying she left town with one of their
husbands, yet all 3 have to spend the day on a boat full of poor kids
wondering via flashbacks if it was their husband. It seemed to be a
unique spin on the classic 40's mystery. Actually more unique than I
Of course there was the 40's stereotypes, when women were "broads" and men were "big gorillas" or "mugs". And of course, both sexes were always dressed to the teeth. But if this portrayal of the high life in the 40's were accurate, the entire generation would have died before 1950 of alcohol poisoning from drinking martinis every few minutes, or of lung cancer from chain smoking filterless cigarettes.
But as I continued to watch, the first thing I noticed was "one of these things is not like the others". That being the casting of Paul Douglas as one of the husbands. 3 woman, considered hot by 40's terms and one of their husbands looks like Larry, Moe and Curly's dad? Seriously miscast and a blaring flaw in the believability of the film. I get that she married him for his money, but Moe's dad? Not buying it.
Then, it got really strange. Suddenly, during the flashbacks, you hear sound effects that sound exactly like the auto-tune effect used by today's pop stars. At first I thought I was imagining it, or maybe somebody slip acid into my coffee. But there it was, auto-tune in a 40's flick, apparently achieved via "talk box", which I thought wasn't available till Walsh and Frampton used it in the 60's. Anyway totally unexpected, yes, ahead of it's time, but at the same time extremely freaky.
But the plot drags along until you lose track of how many cigarettes and martinis are consumed. You keep waiting for one of the wives to call their husband a "big lug"... or for one of husbands to say "why I oughta" or "why you" and give Paul Douglas a double eye poke or maybe hit him in the head with a lead pipe followed by a boink sound effect. Better yet a boink sound effect using auto-tune.
Then as the story winds down in eager anticipation awaiting to find out which big lug left his wife to run away with some unknown dame who only has a name, you pretty much know the ending. But at the same time you never really know due to the vagueness of Moe's dad. Was he making up his confession to cover for who they led you to believe it was? Or, was he really just a "big gorilla" whose dame (aka:broad) forgave him? The world may never know (or be able to consume that amount of alcohol and nicotine) but the glass that falls over for no reason and breaks at the end may only help add to the mystery rather than solve it.
Obviously it took a ton of makeup to make Faye Dunaway look like the
repulsively ugly Joan Crawford. Every time I see a Joan Crawford film,
I wonder in bewilderment, were people blind in the forties? How in the
world did this woman ever land an acting role, regardless of how
deranged or insane the character might be?
Just google Joan Crawford and hit images. You'll see some of the most frighteningly ugly portraits in the history of Hollywood. Was this before they invented tweezers? Did the makeup artist think 1/2" thick eyebrows would help her look more demented? As if that was even possible?
Then you watch this film and find out that in real life Joan Crawford was a complete mental case. I guess that explains the fact her face could shatter a mirror. Also explains all the demented characters she played were not a matter of acting, but just being herself. If you're crazy to the bone and ugly as a steaming pile of dog feces, than playing that type of character requires no acting skills. Just show up on the set drunk, use a magic marker to apply fake eyebrows and just be yourself.
Then when you get home you can abuse the Hell out of your daughter. If there was any justice, Joan Crawford would have died of old age in jail. She had no talent, looked like Satan took a dump on her face and beat her with an ugly stick, she treated her kid like an animal, and couldn't act her way out of a loosely tied Walmart bag.
As far as this movie goes, portraying her pathetic life and horrid motherhood, it sucks to the same level as Crawford. Which is fitting. What better way to portray the life of a piece of crap than hire lame actors for the roles of mother and daughter. Top it off with bad directing, a 1st grade level script and surround it all with unknown supporting actors.
A crowning achievement in all that is lame.
I saw this movie for the first time today on broadcast TV. I watched,
or rather, suffered through, the entire thing. And the whole time I
kept thinking to myself - this would have been a really great movie if
the lead actor could actually act. I didn't know his name, figured he'd
never act again and that this must have been some kind of low budget B
movie that blew their budget on sets rather than real actors... that
and the fact that dude with the big mustache from the Quaker Oats
commercial played the dad.
Each line he spoke was flat, fake, stiff and sounded like it was being read off a cue card by freshman who just signed up for the high school play. Or, a beginner, that didn't know how to get into character and didn't know how to feel the line. To be honest, he almost sounded drunk. It was especially noticeable, almost painful, in the first part of the film. But thankfully, the film has less lines for him in the last half, after it turns into a series of Rocky style fight scenes.
So that's why I was amazed when I came here and saw how many reviewers said the biggest flaw, the "actor" who played the lead role, is what made the film great. I was also amazed that he continued acting after this film and somehow became famous. Maybe it was the fight scenes where he didn't have any lines? Abs over acting skill? I don't know, but I know bad acting when see it. I originally came here to point out to aspiring actors, that if they need a prime example of how to NOT deliver a line, watch this film.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
...and oversized glasses. First of all, this may have worked (at least
a little better) if the story was told in chronological order
of starting near the end and continually using flashbacks to lame
scenes of the past during the overly sweet testimony of Drew Barrymore.
Which was almost enough to cause diabetes.
Worst yet was the casting. Okay, I get Drew Barrymore as the overly sweet cute little kid. But Shelley Long and Ryan O'Neal? By the way, what's up with her left eye? It seems as if it's on delay and always takes a second to align with where her right eye is looking.
At first I thought, wow she's not even close to his league. How could they cast them as a couple. But after seeing their "wake up after a reunited one night stand" scene, and seeing that apparently Ryan O'Neal apparently had no nipples, I realized maybe they are a good match. Defects in common.
Finally, how could anyone in the 80's find Shelley Long's hairstyle attractive. It looks like she cut it herself, with dull scissors and her eyes closed.
One of the worst films I've seen. Annoying flashback script, bad casting, sickening sweet kid and an unbearable haircut. But at least now the world knows Ryan O'Neal has no nipples.
I suffered through this film in jaw dropping disbelief.
First of all, who would cast Dudley Moore and Kirk Cameron in the same film? Seriously? It's like mixing oil and water and just doesn't work. Especially if your cast Kirk Cameron as Dudley Moore's son. Who thought that would be believable? Hey, let's take two of the worst actors in the world that are complete opposites and cast them as father and son.
Then, to add to the puke factor, there's the 80's hair band background music. As if Cameron as son and Moore as father wasn't enough to induce projectile vomiting they pushed it one step further with the lame soundtrack.
Then there's the story line, the script. Were they taking mind altering drugs when they wrote this? If so, it was something that caused complete stupidity.
So he gets another shot, most likely because he won Trump's Apprentice.
I get that. But I've watched a few episodes and came to the realization
of why his first show was canceled back in the 90's.
First of all, as in the past, his monologues just aren't funny.
Secondly, even if it's not the case, he just comes off as self-absorbed and totally disinterested when he's interviewing a guest. It always seems like his mind is elsewhere and that he's thinking about something other than the guest or what they are saying. For God's sake, look them in the eye, instead of acting like you're annoyed by the guest and have to really pee bad.
Thirdly, not sure why, but for some reason and for lack of a better word, he's just creepy.
Anyway, I know there's no way to undo his natural born creepiness, but if he wants to stay on the air, I suggest he should watch some old Carson to see how to actually interview somebody and come off as interested and engaged in the conversation.
Otherwise, this show faces the same demise as his first. Cancellation.
|Page 1 of 4:||   |