cfcpg

The first thing wrong with the movie is the title. "It's complicated" is a lousy title. Weak. Indicative of what the movie will be.

From the very first scene the movie struggles to look like SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE but it isn't. Everyone here is so unreal, fake and so successful! It doesn't make sense.

Another big problem is the casting. Where on Earth did Nancy Meyers get the 3 kids of Baldwin-Streep? I think I could look at their pictures for hours, go out on the streets and meet them and I wouldn't recognize them! Insignificant. The moment they are off the screen I already forgot how they look like. In the extras of the DVD of SGG Nancy Meyers praises herself for having casted Amanda Peet (the daughter of the Diane Keaton character) because "Amanda looks like a daughter". Instead in this movie the children of Baldwin-Streep look like 3 idiots and that's all. Detestable.

Is is a little hard for the audience to believe that Baldwin-Streep are having so much sex if on screen they don't even kiss each other on the cheek! Nicholson and Keaton did a great jog under that aspect in SGG. In the extra of the DVD all the actors were happy about how "great" everyone was and how much fun they had shooting the movie. I need Katherine Hepburn here: "show me a happy set and I will show you a dull movie".

I bought at a flea market 4 movies of Woody Allen at the price of 1. While MANHATTAN was breathtaking and ANNIE HALL was good (I still have to see CRIME AND MISDEMEANORS), for ZELIG Woody Allen takes a pass and decides to make a non-movie.

The movie starts with a joke in a documentary style. Mmhhh, quite good I said to myself. OK, the joke wasn't that bad. I then waited for the movie to start. It never did. Minute after minute after minute that documentary style when on and on and on endlessly and that joke was always the same. Somebody help me!

What a frustration! In this movie there is no acting.

When the end titles came on my DVD player read 71 minutes. How about that? A movie that lasts 1 hour 11 minutes? The last time I saw such a short movie was BELLBOY of Jerry Lewis but it was explained in the extras that production put pressure on Lewis to absolutely finish the movie before Christmas (of whatever year that was) so poor Jerry Lewis only managed to come up with approx. 70 minutes of footage.

What is Woody Allen's excuse for such a short movie? But on the other hand I thank Woody Allen. If this movie was 2 hours long it probably would have killed me.

This is a French Canadian production which certainly can't match the best Hollywood ones. The photography of this movie is horrible along with the colors. Everything is sort of green. Some situations are brought to the extreme where the actors overact. Despite these premises the movie works fine! Entertaining! We have a French cop and an English one. Each one speaks his own language giving the movie a colorful tone. The dualism works fine along with the charisma the actors have. The action is good, the suspense also. Everything is very ironic. When the action stops the excellent chemistry between the actors kicks in and the movie is really fun. We are ready for a sequel.

This movie surprised me. I was was expecting a classical comical movie but instead I ended up watching a movie which is much much more. The most interesting aspect is the entourage of the Ben Stiller character, from his buddy in his hometown to all the people Ben meets in his trip to Mexico, not to mention the blonde main actress of the movie, this girl from Sweeden; what a bunch of weirdos! In some moments of the film I was breathless... what a nightmare for the poor Ben Stiller who buy the way plays the part of a perfect idiot who doesn't know what he wants from life. A good part for the blonde main actress who is also perfect as this apparently beautiful girl who turns out to be a total nightmare and a total monster and freak. Weirdness in all its aspects.

I love John Belushi. I love Dan Akroyd. So these two put together should have made an explosive movie. What happened instead? The 2 actors played the whole movie with sunglasses and had only one expression: being cool. Get lost! OK so there are some good car chases and some good musical numbers. But what about the rest of the movie which by the way lasts more than 2 hours? I can't stand the site of these 2 actors that never crack a joke and are never funny because they are too busy having that cool look. What a waist of talent.

In this movie everything is detached. There is no amalgam between the scenes, as if the movie was just many clips put together. The DVD is quite bad. Bad colors and bad light. I will remember John Belushi for all his movies except this one.

I had a bad feeling about this one. Something told me I wasn't going to like it. And after 60 seconds it started my feelings were right. The movie starts with a narration. There is narrator speaking and I didn't understand anything. After 40 minutes I still had no idea what was going on. That is bad. It is not my fault if the storyline isn't well exposed. Ask Martin Scorsese how to keep a viewer glued to his seat with a narration (CASINO). So the story is either weak or non-existing. I hate movies that take place during the fifties because the actors in their swanky suits feel authorized to overact. I said actors? Who are they? How much charisma do they have? If we take Spacey, Crowe, Pearce and Basinger and put them all together we don't reach 20% of Jack Nicholson alone. This movie is a bad imitation of CHINATOWN.

To make a good movie you either need excellent actors or an excellent director. You need at least one of the two. In this Eye of the Needle we have none.

I don't even remember the name of the director. He mustn't have done much in his career. I like very much Donald Sutherland but he absolutely cannot be the main actor in a movie. He falls short. Sutherland is excellent in a movie when he appears for not more than 15 minutes. I would say for instance that Sutherland was excellent in JFK of Oliver Stone when he talked to Kevin Costner on the bench of a park for 10 minutes non-stop without even taking a breath. Wonderful. But Sutherland being the principal actor in a movie is no good.

Kate Nelligan? She is probably good for TV series. The DVD is awful. Terrible colors. Terrible light. I couldn't even appreciate the scenery of Storm Island for how lousy the photography was.

This Ken Follett story was good but it's a pity they turned it into an uninteresting movie.

I've seen enough movies of Landis to be able to make the following statement: usually when a person doesn't have much material to start off with but succeeds in getting good results we say that he got "the most from the least". With John Landis I would take that quote and flip it around: John Landis gets "the least from the most" if we consider the high quality of the actors he worked with or the very interesting stories he dealt with (often written by himself).

John Landis is the director that almost ruined THE BLUES BROTHERS, a film that I do not consider a masterpiece but certainly would have been so in the hands of another director.

TRADING PLACES is a movie destroyed by Mr. Landis. I have never seen a movie with absolutely no rhythm at all, with never a wriggle, with the actors moving slow-motion. This movie is an airplane that fails take-off and crashes not having picked up any speed. What a pity to see Eddie Murphy almost plastered, unable to move as he would like to. What a pity to see an interesting story flattened that way.

Mr Landis, stick to what you do best: writing movies. Stay away from direction.

I'm a big fan of Norman Jewison. He has done great movies. So it's hard to believe that he directed this slow paced, technically poor and tedious film. This should have been fast and quick. Instead it gets continuously stuck.

The main theme song of Quincy Jones was more suitable for a movie about a man riding his donkey. The opening sequence is terrible. The camera doesn't move. An endless minute just to see a train pass by.

The whole movie is full of terrible cinematographic moments. A man is being chased by the cops in the woods. Jewison made such a lousy camera movement he got me seasick. He thought he was cool putting the camera at ground level.

In another sequence Sidney Poitier is talking with a man in the basement of some building. Wow, that scene lasts forever, I think 15 minutes. I was going nuts so I had to move fast forward. I reached the speed of 32X and that camera still wasn't moving. A long chat can be made interesting. It doesn't happen. Of course the movie talks about very interesting arguments but it doesn't mean that the basics of cinema can be ignored.

This movie never builds any suspense. The encounter of Poitier with Lee Grant is frustrating. The images are not crystal clear. The light is bad and we are talking about a film that takes place during night. The final scene is confusing.

This is Jewison's flop.

Marcello Mastroianni is a great actor but who does he want to fool with those little mustaches playing the part of a Sicilian? He doesn't make sense. He isn't credible. With this premise the movie is all downhill. Mastroianni overacts making his part furthermore less credible. All the actors overact and the movie becomes a mess. Pietro Germi lost control. If everyone was a little more serious this could have a been a great comedy.

The director will make a sort of masterpiece with SIGNORE & SIGNORI (Ladies & Gentlemen) but 4 years will have to pass.

The DVD I saw had images of bad quality. Being an Italian movie unfortunately it often happens.

Here is another Hollywood classic to be demolished.

Audrey Hepburn was unaware of the fact that even superstars can run into a bad movie, so her acting was something like "oh gees what a great actress I am! Here we go with another masterpiece!" George Peppard is insipid, just like all the other characters. Blake Edwards must have been asleep.

The movie is so improbable that it irritates, from the very first scene where Hepburn and Peppard, 2 perfect strangers until that moment, start a very profound conversation.

The movie is never funny and it is even less entertaining. It is stupid, artificial, phony, frivolous, silly and boring. Cruising speed is very low and there is never a wriggle. Mickey Rooney is ridiculous. He turns out to be an imitation of an imitation of Jerry Lewis.

There is only one thing to be saved: the cat!

Unlike David Lean's absolute masterpiece LAWRENCE OF ARABIA here no miracle has occurred. The quality of the images are far from being stunning. The music score is far from being memorable. The story doesn't quite capture me.

The whole movie is too static. Typical of the 50's. The best era for movie making still had to start.

There is another problem. The ASPECT RATIO. This movie must have been nice to see in theaters on a 36-feet wide screen. But in our homes, on a traditional TV set or 16:9 device, it is quite difficult to appreciate it since it is way too wide. No other movie is this wide.

This movie is a failure starting from its most important aspect. I mean, mind you, if there is a movie that necessarily had to have a nice photography it is this one. Yet, this movie is unwatchable. The colors are dead, all yellowish, and the light is terrible. Those famous panoramic scenes are dull. There is no air. There is no depth. Even the scene of a train passing by, at the beginning, has no charm at all. I don't think Sydney Pollack has ever excelled in this domain. I can't believe I read some positive reviews on this argument. I think that when it comes to photography there are people who don't know what they are talking about...

Merryl Streep is monotonic. No comparison with, for instance, her superb performance in THE HOURS of Stephen Daldry where she was intense. Robert Redford? Unwatchable. In a scene he has a terrifying make-up. He has an absent expression.

Jodie Foster declared in an interview that the best movies belong to the sixties and the seventies. I perfectly agree with her. BRUBAKER is the last good movie of Redford, then it is all downhill... Except for a few gems like BRAZIL of Terry Gilliam, the eighties have been a bad moment for the world of celluloid.

This is another movie that freaked me out when I was a teenager but today only manages to make me bang my head repeatedly against the wall in frustration.

Why did they bother with this? I should have known in advance considering that I hate VERTIGO and this BODY DOUBLE imitates it.

The actors are unwatchable. All the events are simply out of this world. There is nothing logical. Reality is continuously scorned.

The cinematographic is level zero. Episodes of COLUMBO with Peter Falk are technically made better.

This movie is a nightmare. For how awful it is.

What happened is that Peter Bogdanovich was called to direct an episode of ADAM-12 with Martin Milner and Kent McCord...

Yes I am joking but here there is absolutely nothing of "cinema". We aren't even on the level of TV series like KOJAK, THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO, MANNIX or THE ROOKIES which are far better than this cinematographic crap which looks more like a lousy Mexican or Brazilian soap opera.

Except for Boris Karloff, there isn't even one familiar face in this "movie", which means that of all the actors that participated not even one became famous or had a decent career.

Episodes of ADAM-12 last 24 minutes but Bogdanovich decided to boost this one to 86 minutes still not finding time to work, for instance, on the psychological aspects of the characters. Very typical of TV series because that's all this "movie" is.

Vertigo is considered a masterpiece yet I found it one of the most boring movies ever. The reason is very simple. There is one thing missing: "cinema".

Those opening credits are terribly annoying with something continuously spinning. The movie is slow, so slow that I have the impression of watching a school play. The direction is amateurish, with no style at all. Flat. Technically poor. That camera doesn't move. Rouben Mamoulian way back in 1932 (Dr. Jekyll) was 10 times more fancy whilst movie making was just at dawn.

The actors are either plastered or made of wood. Kim Novak has a terrible make-up. The events and the story are absolutely improbable.

The movie is old, obsolete, tedious but on the other hand it is so nice & clean and self-satisfied! The result? It is even more unbearable.

Forget about those panoramic scenes. It is my impression that for at least a couple of them they were filmed indoor with the actors standing in front of a screen.

Other terrible things: I didn't know if I had to laugh or cry when James Stewart was about to faint after standing on a chair (Vertigo!) The scene of Stewart jumping in the bay to fetch someone that fell in it is so poorly filmed that even a kid could have come up with something better.

No, I do not like Hitchcock. I prefer directors like Ed Wood. They are more sincere.

I don't mind watching this once in a while for a few reasons.

First. This movie is in format 1.33:1 fullscreen which means that the screen of my old TV set is completely filled whereas almost all movies of the last 40 years are more or less panoramic or "widescreen".

Second. The light in this movie is excellent along with the quality of the images. Kubrick, unlike some directors, handled with care the original negatives of his movies. That is why today Kubrick's films are the most outstanding from an "image quality" point of view despite the fact that they all aged. (Space Odyssey is from 1968). This means respect for the viewer.

Third. The fact that Jack Nicholson looks half crazy from the very first scene rather adds something to the movie instead of penalizing it. From the very first scene we are already tuned on the upcoming outburst of Jack Torrance. We just can't wait till it happens.

The atmosphere is very particular. Some scenes are really the ones of a "horror movie" and by this I mean that the term "horror movie" is very abused.

But I did notice a few things that I didn't like. It happened during the sequence of Jack Torrance with the bartender. I noticed that when Jack is talking, the bartender is out of the picture and we only see a very small portion of his shoulder. When the bartender is talking, Jack is also out of the picture and we only see a small portion of his shoulder also. What kind of a technique is that? Was Kubrick too lazy to work with the 2 actors together? I bet you that when the bartender was filming his scene, that small shoulder we see was the one of a technician and Jack Nicholson was relaxing in his dressing room.

The same thing happens in a more dramatic scene, when Jack Torrance has gone definitely nuts and is about to attack his wife. Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall are never pictured together. If we see Jack, Shelley isn't there and vice versa (except for that famous small portion of shoulder). I think this scene looses much of its dramatic intensity. In the scenes where Shelley was blubbering I couldn't stop thinking of Nicholson probably having a day off.

The scene of Nicholson definitely going nuts is where the movie ends. Every mechanism of the movie drops. The tension of the movie is now uniquely in a physical match which appears right away almost ridiculous. We have a too slow moving Nicholson opposed to a very awkward and clumsy woman. The final part is really without any surprise as we all know what will happen.

From very good to excellent. But not a masterpiece.

The teacher of an evening school for youngsters with social problems is brutally raped and murdered right in her classroom. The only suspects are on the kids of course and the police is surprised to find them all quietly in their homes instead of having escaped. There is a reason. Each kid declares that he did not participate in the brutality but was forced to watch. The police officer Lamberti has reasons to believe that someone, an adult, has orchestrated the kids which are afraid to even mention this person. It will not be an easy case.

Fernando Di Leo takes us for this incredible trip among juvenile delinquency. Although the movie was made in 1969, Di Leo talks about drugs, veneral diseases, prostitution, transvestism, teenagers having sex with old women, homosexuality and incest much in advance compared to what still had to come in our society.

Fernando Di Leo delivers us a very interesting movie technically superb. The interrogation of the youngsters is done in a very sharp style. The rape scene, although very impressive, is simply done with a camera movement. The suspense is well built. Pier Paolo Capponi offers us an excellent interpretation. With him we have Livia Ussaro more interested in the social aspects of the youngsters: "The police doesn't care about the kids, who they are, what they wanted to be, what they do and why they do it, if they have feelings. They are considered criminals and that's all..." But for inspector Lamberti these words will not remain unheard. To solve the case he will also have to consider these aspects.

Fernando Di Leo. One of Italy's most interesting directors.

If you have never seen this movie then go ahead. You will maybe find it interesting. I have another problem instead. I saw this in the mid '70s on CBS and it was a thrill. So recently I bought the DVD and when I watched it again I was bored to death!

Gee whiz, a movie that takes place almost entirely on a subway wagon with the lights out stuck in a dark gallery. The hijackers talking by radio with the authority. Walter Matthau that practically doesn't move from his desk. They want 1 million $ within 60 minutes but cinematographically this movie is really flat. The only thing that will bring you to see it entirely is not knowing how it will end (Matthau in all his splendor).

The DVD by the way is rather awful. The colors are not clean and clear. The edges are over-enhanced. There was no need to film this in format 2.35:1 very wide screen. Something closer to the (old) television format 1.33:1 would have been much better.

The first thing that strikes you in this is the total lack of rhythm. No movie on earth will make you laugh if you have time to fall asleep between scenes.

The acting of Nicholson is the equivalent of a car going around with the brakes pulled. Anjelica Huston is absolutely tasteless, no flavor at all. Kathleen Turner is definitely a talented actress but she isn't passionate. She is cold. No pulse on her wrist. She even looks much older than her age. When she is together with Nicholson they seem people of the same age, yet Jack is 17 years older!

The dialogs are long, very long and with never a wriggle. The story is potentially very interesting but the engine never gets started. The movie is unaccomplished. The only thing that made me laugh is the DC-8 aircraft.

This movie got nominations and won an Oscar? You must be kidding!

The worst thing that could happen when you are watching a movie is that you don't care, you couldn't care less. That is what happened when I saw it and mind you this is no lousy production or a B-movie, I mean the main actors are people like Deniro, Sorvino, Pesci... It doesn't work.

There is nothing intriguing, there is nothing ironical. Ray Liotta starts jazzing right away taking himself oh! so seriously and I couldn't care less. All characters are unpleasant. This movie is completely off balance.

The inside scenes are too dark. The light is terrible. And I am sick and tired of these Scorsese movies with the background music so loud! Hasn't anybody noticed that the voices of the actors are barely audible?

If Kubrick has done only masterpieces then this one fails. Here there is no magic touch, no vivid colors, no famous music score, no fancy camera movements in his style. Very little cinema. And the format 1.33:1 doesn't help.

The first part is OK with the training camp. Good psychology. Well done. But that is it. The movie ends. It isn't even spectacular. I don't know what message Kubrick wanted to portray but I think Francis Ford Coppola did a far better job with APOCALYPSE NOW. There is no comparison. Coppola really showed us and gave us an idea of the horrors of war.

Unlike all war movies where the action takes place on a vast territory, here all the war scenes wheel around a small abandoned manufacture. Besides a couple of gun shooting scenes there is nothing spectacular with the soldiers always talking supposedly saying so many profound things but I don't get their point. During the film did Kubrick run out of money?

It seems that the US version differs from the European one. Anyhow we are talking about a great movie. Inspector Henry Silva is accused of having killed a police informer and is kicked out of the Department. He will have to do all by himself to discover the truth.

The ace of this movie is director Miraglia who manages to make a wonderful direction. Everything is no nice to see, even when Inspector Sterling is simply moving from one room of his house to another. The images are clear and full of light. The atmosphere is tense. The music is great. Beba Loncar is the mysterious blonde that Sterling will have to tail in order to solve his case. Keenan Wynn is the harsh (but comprehensive) chief inspector. Pier Paolo Capponi is the journalist that will try to get a scoop from the surprising epilogue. All these ingredients are magnificently blended in a beautiful San Francisco!

Pulp Fiction is one of those movies you feel uncomfortable to talk about in negative terms since mainstream loves it. The real killer of this movie are the dialogs supposedly so cool but instead being silly and irritating, from the very first scene when endless minutes are waisted talking about a frivolous argument. The violence in this film, rather strong, is very often disturbing but never fun or entertaining. Tarantino takes himself a little too seriously making the movie lose most of its ironical aspect. Unless you are a fan that goes wild for the overweight Travolta, you will find his so-called cult scenes dull and of no interest. All the characters in this movie are exaggerated, and that wouldn't be a bad thing, but they also are not fun. There are some good action scenes, very few, which anyhow will not save from failure a movie that lasts 2hrs 40min!