Reviews written by registered user
|324 reviews in total|
The characters in this film are hideous, dirty, obese, malodorous and unkempt. The hero is a handsome gangly teenage boy. He is in love with a pretty, tomboyish but cruel young lady. The elders behave like characters in a Benny Hill movie. They pantomime extreme sexual attraction to each other, and spend a lot of time in non-consensual sex. The village breaks out into Lysistrata like war between the sexes over the male refusal to repair the water supply. They shoot each other. They lay vicious traps of various kinds for each other. Everyone sleeps with rifles and sets them off by accident repeatedly. I did not find this amusing. These people were psychopaths. At the end, boy gets girl, though I was not too happy about this. She had repeatedly abused him so badly, I hoped for a new love for him.
Dr. William Palmer poisons various members of his family and his
friends in various schemes to get money. He is a gambler and
spendthrift, always deeply in debt.
I started our rooting for Dr. Palmer, much as I rooted for Dexter, but I quickly came to hate him and his oily ways and willingness to betray the innocent. The show became harder and harder to watch. I had to take breaks. He was like a snake stalking victim after victim.
He destroys many sympathetic people whom you have got to know, something that does not happen in a traditional murder drama. This is based on a ghastly true story.
People had intuition he was out to kill them, but they were too polite to act on it. They allowed him to kill them.
Palmer is revolting. He pushes giant forkful after forkful of food into his face. He delicately dabs the corner of his mouth with a napkin. He has no conscience of any kind. He can always come up with a new plausible lie any time he is cornered. Like Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes he has a way of expressing disdain and contempt with his every utterance.
People, especially children, die so often in 1850, it is fairly easy for a poisoner to murder without coming to the attention of the authorities.
The film ends with a detailed autopsy, trial and hanging, so you feel properly revenged. Fittingly, he was betrayed with false testimony.
Technically, the image is fuzzy and dull. The image is square not letterbox.
The film does not put that gloss the way most period pictures do. The characters are not physically appealing. Their clothes are drab and hideous.
The many sets are so well done, you do not notice them.
This is an absolute treat. It takes place in the 1920s in Australia.
The detective is a wealthy flapper, who reminds me a bit of Diana Rigg
in the Avengers.
The sets are lush. The music is fun. The costumes are opulent and eye- popping. The males are scrumptious and sexy. The characters are Dickensian in their eccentricity. Our heroine is a thoroughly Modern Millie. Her maid, Dot, is a terrible prude of a Catholic, who fears even electricity as wicked. It has a sexy crackle to it.
Unlike the usual convention, the detective is in constant peril. She uses all manner of devices to rescue herself including some impressive gymnastics.
The plot charges along at breakneck speed. It is so well done, I can't think of a single thing I think should have been improved. There might have been one anachronism. The maid finds what might have been some birth control pills under the bed.
This is the very last episode of Inspector Morse. It is quite
depressing. Characters like Inspector Morse and Inspector Tom Barnaby
become like family members. Colin Dexter, the writer of the novels,
makes a cameo. There are about four murders. There are at least a dozen
major characters. I found it unusually difficult to keep track of who
was who, even when it was over. Some characters were memorable,
Meg Davies as Yvonne Harrison, a disgustingly sexual older woman.
Anna Wilson-Jones as Sandra Harrison remaining me of Samantha Bond.
Simon Hepworth as Simon Harrison the deaf bookstore owner.
Jesse Birdsall as John Barron a dashing Don Juan.
Aidan David as Roy Holmes, a teen cyclist.
This episode is unique in that the supernatural plays a major role.
Both Barnaby and Scott start out as sceptics, but become believers. (I
don't approve of injecting woo into realistic dramas. It leads the
public astray and dresses them to be conned.)
It has a cast of eccentric characters:
A hermit obsessed with meticulously recording air pressure, who can make slot machines pay off.
A handsome young mad scientist who puts people in a Faraday cage and shocks them to train them to have second sight.
An insufferably vain, priggish, self-righteous vicar.
A baby, who, any time she cries, it portends doom.
A barkeep who has dozens of ways to rip off his customers.
The ending is so classically melodramatic. All that was missing was the pipe organ and the howling werewolves.
There is one special effect that is quite impressive. A truck crashes through the wall into a schoolroom.
In this movie, Sherlock is 17, tall and emaciated with very bushy
eyebrows looking quite unEnglish.
It is acted in a hammy sort of way, as if it were a filmed stage play.
There are plenty of eccentric characters besides Sherlock. All are given time to develop into individuals, even the evil henchmen.
The plot is quite James Bondian. The melodramatic villains repeatedly capture Sherlock, then either give him an escape test, give him a present, put him to sleep, present some elaborate charade, or just let him go. They never just shoot him. I could never figure out why they bothered capturing him.
There are lots of surprises, but that is mainly because the villains are bonkers.
Helen Chase as Aunt Rachel does a brilliant performance, I can't quite figure out what she did, but I instantly loathed her, sort of like Maggie Smith, but horrible. Some of her attributes include:
putting people down, subtly
excessive concern with social status, fawning over those with higher status
complaining that others are not considerate of her
continual references to her superior Christian virtue
Eva Griffiths, plays Charity, her spoiled brat of a child, who reminded me of a Pekinese. She was her mother in training.
The picture is cloudy, as if filmed at low res, and the frame is square, not letterbox. It was filmed in 9 TV episodes. 3 DVDs worth. This drags the story out a bit much. For example, the denouement takes an entire episode. It was stolen from the Wizard of Oz.
The "fight" scenes are amateurish to the extreme. You might see better in a high school play.
However, despite all its faults, it is entertaining and leaves you smiling.
This is a story of a woman who lives in 1907 in Sweden, married to an
abusive, philandering, jealous, alcoholic husband. It is although you
took a trip through a time machine. Everything in the grim poverty
seems completely real. It has none of that brand-new shininess that
period pieces usually have were every building, piece of clothing, car
and house is gleaming. She has 7 angelic children. This seems odd since
neither of the parents are particularly good looking. An one point we
are told we are now 5 years later. Yet the children, replaced by
different actors, looked about 14 years older. That was the only time
the illusion of reality was broken.
Her life is a grind, just barely making do by taking photographs and sewing. It has a surprise happy ending, but even that is snatched away by the grim realities of life in poverty.
The children are smug Christians, quick to condemn for breaking biblical commandments. They are quite obnoxious little Puritans.
So much goes on in the background. It bit like living in the neigbourhood.
The movie is made up of daily small events, one after the other, with a slow heavy pace.
My review gives no hint why the movie is so good. It the opposite of Hollywood, the opposite of contrived, the opposite of make believe.
The film consists entirely of a meeting of high level Nazi officers
planning exactly how they will exterminate all of Europe's Jews. On one
level it is as boring as watching a meeting of the board of ConAgra
plotting the more efficient slaughter of cattle. It is surprisingly
easy to forget they are talking about the efficient murder of millions
of people. They cloak everything in vague, undefined euphemisms.
All the characters are real people. The dialogue comes from a transcript of the meeting. In the credits they tell you want happened to each of them. All had some sort of unpleasant end, even if it were just being held in jail for years on charges of war crimes.
Why did these people collaborate with Hitler? They saw Hitler's absolute power, and did whatever they had to do to climb up in the hierarchy, which included pretending to despise Jews passionately. Moral people had no real choice but to get out of the country.
I kept expecting the kitchen staff to poison these villains, or blow them to bits. But no such thing happened. The movie had to conform with history.
This film is aimed at someone who has never touched a computer. It explains very basic information then repeats it three times for good measure. It is not that visual a story, so they show completely irrelevant graphics, mostly of people doing one finger typing. The important story is how two nerds managed to patent the wheel (the most obvious way to sort search results) and thus tie the hands of all competitors. But that would not fit in with the hagiography. If anyone ever decides to retell this story, they should feature the cut throat competition. That could be quite exciting. They also might explain why Google Adwords is so appealing both to advertisers and to people with space for ads. This has turned into a money machine for Google.
This is a commercial for Islam. It puts it in the best possible light.
It simply ignores the horror. Further, it just assumes all the
supernatural claims of Islam are true, without question. Today if a
person had experiences similar to Muhammad's, we would presume
schizophrenia, epilepsy or other brain problem. The authors of the film
make the same presumptions the people of 1400 years ago made of his
visions, completely ignoring modern interpretations.
People unfairly judge Muhammad for not being an 21st century feminist, even though he did more than anyone in his time to advance women's rights. This film sets that right. Unfortunately, Islam froze any advances since Muhammad, missing the point of his teaching. They skirted the 9-year old bride issue.
Karen Armstrong asserts "I am absolutely sure that Muhammad loved his wife Kadija. It was not just a marriage for money or convenience." But she give no evidence of any kind to explain why she thinks that. The whole film works this way, making assertions without telling you why the author holds those assertions.
Karen Armstrong asserts the ineffable beauty of the Arabic poetry of the Qur'an. How could she possibly know that without learning Arabic? What she meant was that Arabic speaking Muslims had told her it was unusually beautiful.
|Page 1 of 33:||          |