Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Sound of Music Live! (2013 TV Special)
If you coming to play ball, please bring a bat...
6 December 2013
If you're going to broadcast a live production of a much-loved, iconic classic (whether it's the stage or film version of ANYTHING), you had better prepare to hit the ball out of the park… NBC didn't even buy us a ticket to the game… And, that's sad, because kids today who've never before even seen such an animal (live production broadcast), now have their bar set so very low, it's a wonder they'll ever again even bother to reinvest the grueling, 2 ½ hours it took to get-through this challenging rendition.

Here's why… Since NBC's live version of "The Sound of Music" was a rendition of the Broadway PLAY, one really cannot compare 'apples to apples', since the play has never been broadcast live before, and today's TV viewers have only seen the movie version (which one cannot compare to the play). So, to be fair, let's compare live TV of a play to live TV of a play. If you use Roger's and Hammerstein's TV production of Cinderella as a comparison (broadcast by CBS in 1965), you'll see why NBC's Sound of Music, blew-it.

You see, the TV 'suits' of the 1960's realized that, if you're going to present an iconic story, and you're going to broadcast the show live, in prime time, during the holidays, you have to bring big names with big talent. That's why "Cinderella", for instance, showcased Lesley Ann Warren, Walter Pidgeon, Celeste Holm and Pat Carroll, to name a few. Those actors could not only sing, but they could act, too (and the '65 Cinderella required a lot of both). Having the ability and talent to do both, makes a huge difference when vying for the highly critical, ever bored, TV audience of today. So, when NBC of today hired a country singer who cannot act (even slightly), and cast the rest of the production with names who aren't generally known, a flop was not expected, it was guaranteed (The exception here, of course, was the amazingly talented, Audra McDonald as the mother superior (Superior's an understatement) – what NBC SHOULD have done was broadcast 2 ½ hours of HER singing whatever she wanted).

So, to 'review' NBC'S 'Sound of Music', I can only suggest that they start over (It was THAT bad). Instead, I say, think big, as those in Hollywood should. Cast Hugh Jackman (who can sing AND act) as the Captain. Pull one of the well-known witches who played "Wicked" on Broadway as Maria (singers, dancers, actors). Throw in someone a' la Timberlake as Rolf (and make him blond, for God's sake—it's a Nazi play), and you've got yourself a show. Otherwise, you're stuck for nearly 2 ½ hours with a big-named singer who not only can't act, but can't save the cast she's burdened with carrying...Shame on NBC.
15 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Pest (1997)
1/10
The absolute worst...
18 February 2003
Obviously, the comments above that fawn over the movie were made by someone who's on the crew. I don't recall ever seeing a movie that's more insulting to the talented actors or the audience watching. In my 30 years of watching movies, this is the only one I have ever walked out of. Bad humor, bad jokes, bad gags, bad editing, bad plot, etc.

Note to producer: It's never funny to hunt humans based on race. Great that you tried to be politically correct by incorporating all races, but you're still hunting humans based on race, and that's sickening.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Teenage Caveman (2002 TV Movie)
another Larry Clarke perversion film
30 October 2001
If you're into teenage porn, this film is for you.

Too bad the actors didn't figure out until it was too late that they are victims of another ruse by director Larry Clarke to get a bunch of teenagers drunk and naked on film.

We've seen it in "Kids", "Bully", and now this... More bad Larry Clarke
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Come Undone (2000)
bad presentation ruined this film
31 August 2001
Don't believe the rest of the reviewers who say the movie was good "in spite of" the lack of plot, unanswered questions and confusing flashbacks. Huh? Bottom line: If a movie has huge holes and superfluous scenes and/or characters, it's a bad movie. That's what happened here, regardless of those who think the movie was great just because it addressed an otherwise taboo subject matter.

Here, as a viewer of "Come Undone", you have no idea whether you're in a flashback or not, you don't know why the characters break up, you never find out who certain characters are to eachother, and you don't know where half the action takes place or why (what WAS that scene with the cat all about?).

If you're a movie producer, you don't get credit for trying. If you're movie turns out bad, it's bad. Proof here: all the people (lots) who walked out of the theater where I watched this movie.

"Come Undone" left me wanting to write a check to the director/editor to pay for a summer course at film school.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bully (2001)
don't jump on the bandwagon
6 August 2001
Anyone giving this film any type of positive review is suffering from an "Emperor's New Clothes" mentality. What's being marketed as a "raw, cutting edge, pushing-the-limit" film is really no more than college project-type work gone bad. It's actually a very bad movie with very bad acting and a very bad script. Too bad, too, because the book (it's a true story) spells out the plot clearly. The editing is poor, the cinematography horrific, and did I mention the acting? Veterans Brad Renfo and Nick Stahl need to keep this film off their resumes. And director Larry Clark? He got away with reeling us in "Kids", but now the joke's on us.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
don't jump on the bandwagon
6 August 2001
Anyone who's pretentious enough to applaud this movie needs to jump off their artsy-fartsy soapbox and rid themselves of their "emperor's new clothes" mentality. In reality, this movie is horrible, long and pointless. No plot, no character development, too many unanswered questions. And, those "dramatic" black pauses between EVERY scene are EXHAUSTING! Did I mention pointless? I feel like I've had my teeth drilled.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
insipid, vacuous and pathetic...Do NOT rent this movie!
16 November 1999
Warning: Spoilers
It's hard to believe that actors/actresses of this caliber would lower themselves to be associated with a "film" such as this. It's essentially a flick for 35-year-old "Porky's" fans. Problem is, "Porky's" was funny when you were 16, and when the actors were playing teenagers, too-- It's NOT funny when the actors are playing 30-year-olds. Everyone involved in this movie should be punished and forced to spend a great deal of time hanging out with junior high school kids during an unsupervised weekend...that's what I was forced to do watching this movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed