Reviews written by registered user
timothymcclenaghan

Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
53 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Flight (2012/I)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Denzel With Dirty Fingernails....Again, 20 May 2013

I haven't seen every Denzel Washington film, but in every one of his films I have seen, Washington has dirty fingernails. Does the man not own a nail file or nail brush? I can't believe neither the cinematographer nor the director doesn't comment on this when filming takes place. Pay careful attention when a close-up of his hands is done and you'll see. And don't give me any bunk about them using hand models for close-ups.

Putting that side, this movie absolutely crawls to an ending. The pace is so, so slow. Was the director trying to make a long movie? Was he paid by the foot of the film? The extraneous scenes did nothing to develop the plot. I fault the script writers for that.

This entire story could have effectively been done in an hour. Picking up the pace of the dialog and dropping the non-essential scenes would have made a much better film.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Ann Miller Gets Top Billling at Paramount Pictures, 10 November 2012
7/10

Here is top-billed Ann Miller with blonde hair. I really studied her in this film, and I don't think it's a wig.It must have taken gallons of peroxide to get her black hair blonde. Miller provides her usual snazzy tap dancing.

This film has peppy music, although none of it memorable enough to be included with "standards", or even memorable enough to have survived into present day, even though the composers were top-notch talent. Miller, Johnnie Johnstone and Betty Rhodes provide the vocals, with a little bit of Jerry Colonna's nonsense.

Vera Vague, the character created by Barbara Jo Allen, is listed in the credits under the character's name. Vague is the ditzy man-hungry ugly duckling, as the girlfriend of leading lady Rhodes.

The plot is topical for 1942 World War II: patriotism, war-effort, swing music, and with the usual boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl in the end story included. Is it a "B" picture? Maybe, although it's a big too long for that category, but with lesser talents making up the cast, perhaps not an "A" picture, either. It would be an interesting project to research old newspaper advertisements to see how it was presented.

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Another Ann Miller Film From Columbia, 10 November 2012
7/10

This film is another entry in the "B" movie group of movies starring Ann Miller produced by Columbia Pictures. Despite that status, there were very talented members of the crew who became prominent later on in Hollywood. Choreographer Jack Cole makes an early career appearance showing his distinctive, original style in the film's production numbers. Cole went on to do choreography for A pictures at both Columbia and 20th Century Fox, notably Gentlemen Prefer Blondes with Marilyn Monroe. Also, Sammy Cahn and Jule Styne provide original music. They were evidently staff composers for Columbia, also composing original music for many other films at that studio. Cahn became one of Frank Sinatra's favorite composers.

LIke most of the other Columbia Miller films, the flimsy plot is just an excuse to sing and dance. Miller fans will be pleased to see the tap dancing production numbers, as well as her song performances. Joe Besser provides comedy, which may have been funny in the day, but now seems very dated. Jeff Donnell plays the airhead girlfriend, the same type of role she played in many other films. So even though it's formulaic, it has enough pleasant moments to make watching it worthwhile. It's not the best Ann Miller film, but not the worst either.

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Good News For Ann Miller Fans, 24 September 2012

When Sony/Columbia announced they were going to put their library on DVD, I thought it would probably be a cold day in you-know-where before they issued any of Ann Miller's films. But they have indeed released this film, and not only that, it's digitally remastered so the quality is pristine. No more bootleg copies made from wonky TV broadcasts.

This is the film Miller made for Columbia before she got her long-term contract with that studio and it was her performance here that assured the outcome. She got top billing over veterans Rudy Vallee and Rosemary Lane, which must indicate that Columbia already thought highly of her.

In this film, Miller dances more than in any of her other Columbia films. So if you're a Miller fan, you will be satisfied with acquiring a copy.

Doll Face (1945)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Why did 20th Century-Fox Bother?, 20 September 2012
3/10

This film wastes the talents of Vivian Blaine and Carmen Miranda. Evidently produced right after the end of World War II, Fox didn't care to spend the money on Technicolor, and "cherry blonde" Blaine and flamboyant Miranda should have never been photographed in black and white.

The score is ho-hum. The composers did a much better job on the previous film "Nob Hill" also produced in 1945 in Technicolor and also starring Blaine, with two superb ballads, even though the songs are nearly forgotten today.

Miranda is given only one performance, with the typical tropical theme, a boring song, again losing a lot without Technicolor.

So why did Fox bother? I suppose when you have people under contract, one has to use them somehow in something. Perhaps if the burlesque subject matter had been played up and more burlesque comedy used this film might have ended up a better product.

Great Guy (1936)
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Cagney Can't Save A Stupid Movie, 24 July 2012
1/10

This film has a stupid plot--merchant corruption policed by the Bureau of Weights & Measures, with related political corruption. If they wanted a movie about fighting corruption, there were plenty of other more interesting areas to explore.

The script writers didn't give Cagney much to work with. He plays his stereotypical Irishman, and does his usual knocking people around.

Did anyone else notice that Mae Clarke gets a little revenge against Cagney for his shoving a grapefruit in her face in Public Enemy? This time she plays a p-whipping shrew fiancée, with Cagney playing submissive and caving in to her.

This movie may not have been officially a "B" movie since it probably didn't play second to another feature at the time, but it sure falls into that category in terms of quality.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Noticing The Cheap Production Values, 20 July 2012
2/10

I came across the DVD of this film at the library, and thought it might be fun to watch an oldie.

Cheap production values showed up immediately. It starts with the opening titles, showing bees in a honeycomb. I thought this movie was about wasps.

The place of the company in the plot is Manhattan--time: present date 1959. Producer Corman buys stock street scene footage of New York City with 1920s-1940s autos. Later street scene footage using actors in a car is obviously filmed in Los Angeles, because I saw palm trees.

When the mad scientist injects the wasp potion into guinea pigs to demonstrate the rejuvenation, they turn into rats. Maybe they should have had him inject rats and then showed mice.

In the mad scientist's laboratory are more bees in honeycombs. Perhaps because wasps aren't available from a prop rental company.

Now we all know Corman made movies on a shoestring, and this film is definitely a prime example.

Don't bother with it unless you don't care about wasting 1 hour and 12 minutes of your life.

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
A Terrible Things To Do To Perfectly Innocent Film, 25 June 2012
1/10

This is a film that didn't need to be made, as evidenced by the fact it didn't even break even at the box office. That would tend to indicate that word of mouth quickly killed off this film.

The plot moves at a snail's pace, without any suspense. I was lead to believe that this was a sci-fi picture, but the only "sci" was surgery, yet there was plenty of "fi", meaning an unbelievable story.

The script is terrible, allowing the actors to show all of the emotions from A to B. I don't think the leading lady's facial expression changed throughout the entire film.

The novel upon which the script is based must have lost something in the translation from Japanese to English. Maybe it's due to the differing tastes of our cultures.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Methinks it's not in Technicolor, 25 June 2012
7/10

First, a little background, this taken from information on Wikipedia: Technicolor was perfected by 1935. Selznick Int'l was formed in the same year with the intention of producing a limited number of films yearly, of the highest quality, all to be filmed in Technicolor.

If you look at The Garden of Allah, released in 1936, one year prior to Nothing Sacred, there is a film credit of "Filmed in Technicolor" below the title. There is also a separate credit for Natalie Kalmus as Technicolor supervisor.

However, the notation below Nothing Sacred's title, only says "In Color" and there is NO Technicolor credit of any kind in the credits. Had it been filmed in Technicolor, there would definitely have been a Technicolor credit, since the only way to film in Technicolor, was to rent the cameras from the Technicolor corporation. There were competing color processes around so who knows why Selznick deviated from its policy.

It's probably not Cinecolor. According to the information on Wikipedia, Cinecolor wasn't used for anything other than animation in the time period Nothing Sacred was produced.

I viewed a DVD borrowed from the library, which said "Digitally Remastered" on the jacket. What a joke! It was the worst quality print imaginable--faded color and scratches galore.

This lack of quality is likely from the copyright holder's failure to renew the copyright, putting the film in the public domain, and anybody could make a DVD copy. According to Wikipedia, Disney has the original negatives. The University of Texas, Austin, has all of Selznick International's papers, so perhaps someone there could see whether there are surviving production notes about what color process was used to produce this film.

I give the film a 7 for content and performance, but I wonder if there exists a decent DVD copy around for us to view.

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
So Trite, So Recycled, So What, 1 October 2011

I'm glad that Spielberg saved the sets from Jurassic Park, and the leftover CGI, so that this could be a "green" production by recycling.

Within 15 minutes of the start, I knew that the teenagers would be encountering raging dinosaurs--ooh, such suspense, I'm so scared. Plus, there's a dissenting group of settlers in another camp to make war on Terra Nova. That was last used in the TV flop "Jericho".

The best dialog that the scriptwriters could create is for the Dad to say to the kids is "Stay here; everything's going to be OK". The lines are so old that they have mold.

The series will appeal to 10 year-olds and stunted adults who like dinosaurs. There's a word for this series, but it's not polite to say it in print.


Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]