paulemzod

I think the principle criticism of the film is its length, and the long and often tedious buildup to the point where it began to interest you, and then, thanks primarily to DiCaprio's performance it moved to its conclusion. If the introduction of the characters, and their various interactions had taken less time, and the better parts strung together more judiciously, that might have saved it. I do not think I would recommend it to my friends. The film is no Dances with Wolves, and the other films that depict the abuse of the Native American tribes. De Niro's voice almost reminded me of his character in Cape Fear. I might even say he was miscast. Not a bad film, just a disappointing one. Perhaps you'll like it better.

This has been appointment television for me for the length of the series, that is now moving into late middle age, and the actors have matured in their roles, and in their lives, most of them now in their forties, fifties, and Tom in his late seventies, Henry five years older. The series is very well written, to support traditional values, and the characters held to strict standards of behavior that are, I fear, a reflection of a vanishing world. And therein for many viewers lies the appeal, the hope that moral standards still exist, even though we witness their erosion on a daily basis. The Peter Pan effect, the hope that right will always win out, and when it doesn't, there is always an injury to all of us. The family dinner is also a reminder of a bygone era, and for those of us who remember it, a fond memory. On Blue Bloods, I feel I have a seat at the table. A pity the series can't last forever, but then neither can we.

The premise of the film promises some very interesting developments, but the focus is on the three principle characters, and not on the alien who visits them. I found that disappointing, perhaps my expectations were too high. Starman with Jeff Bridges is a far superior film, as is another "other worldly" film in which he stars, together with Kevin Spacey, who presents himself as an alien. Jules is somewhat entertaining, but not what I expected. It rubs shoulders with some important themes, but never really embraces them. Recommends with those qualifications. But I am a harsh critic these days.

The title throws you off, I'll wager there was some discussion about that, but it is not what I thought it might be, it is far better than that, and Cage is in very good form in this one, reminding us what a really gifted actor he is. He's really quite a phenomenal actor, and proves it again in this film. It is a sobering story, with subtle touches that keep you interested as it unfolds. Good performances all around, really worthwhile. I saw him interviewed recently, asked about his favorite films, and he rated this one as one of his best. I have to agree. If you're a fan of his work, you'll like this one. I sure did.

I've always found it arresting, and well acted, and the subject matter intriguing, but I gain new appreciation for the film's achievements with each new viewing. The casting, the closeups of Deborah Kerr's lovely face, the story, the sets that fooled you entirely into believing that it was filmed on location. The individual performances, especially Kathleen Byron as Sister Ruth, who fell into a deep erotic possession, and the close ups of her very expressive face, her often frantic voice, and her dashing about in a kind of frenzy, almost stole the show. Who has not trembled at some point with those feelings, fixated on someone who has completely captivated you. Sexual obsession. A kind of madness. But then there was Jean Simmons, in her teens, at her most sensuous, as the exotic young Indian woman who seduces a prince. The body language is so important, in all of the characters, each with his/her signature movements, gestures, or stillness. Credit the direction. The sound mixing, the brilliant photography, and the beautiful colors. The struggle against the constrains of society, the motives for turning to a cloistered life, and the ways in which it affects those who choose that life. It has become one of my favorite films, that I can appreciate on so many levels. It's also remarkable to see how well it stands up three quarters of a century after it was made. A true classic. Highly recommended.

The photographer took full advance of the beautiful landscapes where the film is set, careful to frame the shots that often stood alone as a cameo, pictures that an artist might have painted. He was careful about the light, often choosing a late hour, at twilight or just before, like a painter choosing exactly the right color from his palette. Stephen Rae is one of my favorite actors (the Crying Game), and he was outstanding in this film. All of the actors gave outstanding performances, making this a very watchable film. A couple of things that I found a bit distracting. The clipped dialogue was a bit difficult to catch, and the dialogue so softly spoken in some cases that I had to listen carefully. Also, not normally an issue for me, the English accents were so pronounced and quickly spoken that it presented somewhat of a problem as well, but perhaps that is all attributable to my sound system, and no fault of the film. There is one reveal in the film that I found off putting, and bit confusing. Aside from that I would enthusiastically recommend the film. It was, with those noted exceptions, outstanding in every respect. Rafe Spall was especially effective as the villain. It is certainly worth your time. Eight very strong stars for this one.

Otherwise, unless you're prepared for a couple of hours of tedium, I would skip it. I recall years ago watching a long film about the slow decay of Sicilian aristocracy, with a good cast that included Bert Lancaster, The Leopard, an appropriate title since the film stalks you like that stealthy cat, and finally when he pounced, it was worth the wait. Meek's cutoff is not worth the wait, in my opinion, it is agonizingly slow, a deliberate attempt to draw the viewer into the narrative, to make you taste the dust in your mouth, and hear the squeak of every wagon wheel. All like watching paint dry. Perhaps, if you're in the mood for it, but even then the disappointing ending makes is a waste of time. A good cast of actors, badly used. My strong recommendation is that, if you haven't seen it and you're looking for a good pioneer western, watch 1883 with Sam Elliot. Much better choice. Or further back, Robert Taylor in Westward the Women.

My generation overlapped with theirs in the most meaningful ways; these guys were our parents, our teachers and scout masters, and among the very best men I ever knew. I knew those guys, many of them, bombardiers, pilots, soldier and sailors. All the men in my family served, and I heard their stories. There are many excellent films that came out of that war, and this is one of the best of them. It celebrates the heroics of the 8th Air Force, many of them just young guys in their 20's asked to do impossible things. And a great many of them died in that terrible war. My admiration for them is boundless, and my admiration for the men who made these films to celebrate their accomplishments is boundless as well, many of them who were veterans themselves. What a great group of actors in this film, including the terrific character actor Millard Mitchell, who shared the screen with Peck in The Gunfighter as well. Those are still my favorite actors, and my favorite films. I've seen 12:0:Clock High several times, and never failed to be impressed by it, and grateful for the sacrifice those men made for me and for this country. I served in the Air Force during Vietnam, and these guys were always my role models.

I do not need to heap any additional praise on this extraordinary film, that I have seen and enjoyed many times over the years. As I grow older, now a veteran myself, and having grown up in the post wars years following world war two, the film is especially meaningful to me. I was born a scant four months after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and grew up around the veterans of that war. Having worn the uniform in my 20's, I watch that opening scene when Prewitt reports to his new Company, and the sounds he hears, that we hear, like the door closing on the barracks and the hollow echo that it makes from inside, takes me back to my squadron compound, and the years I spent in service. Some of those old WW11 barracks where still in use on some of the bases where I spent time. There is no other experience like it, especially in a time of war. Once you have worn the uniform, you never really take it off. As a longtime fan of movies, I saw this one when it first appeared in theaters, and the only qualm that I had about the film is the final scene, that I didn't fully understand at age 10, and have wondered about ever since. Something, not sure what, seemed a bit odd to me about Donna Reed's remarks aboard ship as she and Deborah Kerr are leaving the island, when she tells Deborah something that is untrue. The scene had its intended effect, but I never quite understood why she had chosen to make up that story. The only motive seemed out of character for her. A black and white masterpiece, that is a must see for any fan of classic films.

It's surprising to read other reviews of this series, and see how negatively some viewers saw it. I thought with minor exceptions, despite the cliches that others found objectionable, to me they were time honored techniques of storytelling. The photography of the magnificent landscapes was superb, and must have sorely challenged the camera crews who obviously labored hard to produce it. It brought the hardships the pioneers must have endured on those arduous journeys vividly to mind, compressed no doubt into a tighter narrative for the sake of brevity. And events were dramatized since this was not a documentary, but meant to be an entertainment, and the history is still there. Excellent performances by all involved, especially old favorite Sam Elliot, whose performance stands beside his hombre in Conagher as one of his best. Perhaps I am more forgiving of the series flaws, and it had them, principally the narrative, and a couple of hiccups in the story line, But for me it held me with both arms. The young, beautiful Isabel May was perfect as the young pioneer girl whom we all grow to love for her spirited independence, and for such a young actress she did a splendid job with this role. I cannot say here how I felt at the conclusion of the series because it would spoil it for those who have not seen it, but I was touched by it. There was tragedy along the way, inevitably, and the cost of westward expansion was a prairie strewn with unmarked graves. I cannot image the bravery it took to attempt such a journey. I recall reading that Thomas Jefferson, after Lewis and Clark had led the way, believed that Americans would slowly settle the vast reaches of the west but he thought that it would take many generations; Americans did it in eight. If you enjoyed Lonesome Dove, you'll like this one. And an older film Westward the Women with Robert Taylor from 1951 is also worth your while. And the words of reflection that the old cowboy Elliot plays in the series sounds at times as if they are being uttered by both the actor and the man. Watch it, forgive its shortcomings and be entertained.

I should remember this, since it is based on a true story, but I don't recall reading about it, so it unfolded for the first time for me. It is not for children, or young adults, although they've probably seen everything by now. This one gets my highest marks, with a couple of small complaints, beginning with the music score, didn't like it, wondered who chose it, never seemed to really fit, so that irked me a bit, the low spoken dialogue now and then, but maybe I'm growing hard of hearing or my speaker system isn't up to par. Or maybe this is the new "method", just mumble your lines if you want to sound menacing. There is one moment that caught me by complete surprise, and I'm not sure yet what it meant. All that aside, this one is a winner, in more ways than one. It picked up a number of awards, including a few well deserved emmys. It was nice to see Ted Danson, and Billy Bob Thornton in top form, along with a host of others.

I'm a big fan of westerns, but this one doesn't work, at any level. Mystified why such good actors would consent to do this film, unless they understand something about it that failed to make it across on screen. It almost gets going a couple of times, but then we slow down and get reflective. Is this a psychological western? Give me Monte Walsh any day. I guess I just cut my teeth on such good westerns that this one just doesn't favorably compare. John C. Reilly was best suited to his character, but he's always good to watch, there's one scene involving a horse that I liked, and thought that might be about to redeem the film, but sadly, it didn't. But I must say that the scenery was nice.

This was just what the doctor ordered, an action packed film, that is far more entertaining that I thought it might be, with a stellar performance by the female lead. It seems also to be a homage, albeit a rather fantastical one, to the very talented, very courageous women who flew fighters and bombers to where they were needed during the war, and some gave their lives in the effort. They also proved they could handle any task as well as the men, including the heavy bombers that skeptics thought they were not strong enough to control. They built them in many cases, and performed every other task on the home front with equal skill, building aircraft and ships, doing the heavy lifting, welding, whatever it took, and doing it damned well. I have boundless admiration for those ladies, and I think they would have liked this film. I liked it a great deal. Don't try to make sense of it, just enjoy it for what it is, a thrill ride, with some unusual bad guys. If you can watch it in the right frame of mind, it's a terrific film, and a well deserved tribute to that generation.

It's a very good movie, don't get me wrong, with outstanding performances by everyone, especially Amy Adams and Glenn Close, but there are a couple of distractions that I couldn't get past in watching it. It seems fairly obvious that all the cast members put on additional weight, and "let themselves go", maybe too many baloney sandwiches, in order to look the part, and I hate seeing one of film's most beautiful women in that condition. "uglied up" as it were, like Charlize Theron in Monster, and DeNiro in Raging Bull. And I wish that Amy would quit smoking. Ron Howard rarely disappoints, and this is a good film, but I just couldn't warm up to the characters, or get past the distractions of seeing everyone hill- billied up for their roles. Amy has clearly embraced her age, and transitioned into roles that are age appropriate for her, but this, at least for me, was too much too soon. Glenn, on the other hand, looks perfectly at home inhabiting the role of an old lady. She is, after all, 74 now, and has been down the road. Amy's outing in Sharp Objects, that I saw recently, was one of her best roles, and highly recommended. This one was good, but not great. They all can't be Apollo 13.

Curious how some reviews are damning this series with faint praise, I thought it was exceptionally well done. The casting was right on, the plot was engaging, and I was thoroughly entertained. It was not, as some have noted, a documentary meant to reflect in every detail the actual operation of a nuclear sub. The CGI was well done as well, in depicting a sub moving stealthily through the ocean, a sight that chills my blood, when I consider the destructive power it contains, and the utter foolishness of creating such a monster. But that is beside the point. My only issue was the thick accent that to my American ear was often difficult to understand. But that's just me. I enjoyed it, and would recommend it.

The first and obvious comparison is with Rear Window, and a couple of other films come to mind, although I don't believe this was a conscious homage to any of them. The film has its moments, keeps you guessing a bit, but in the end really has nowhere to go. Amy is always compelling to watch on screen, she's just so good, and still, at 47, very pretty. But the plot never really congeals. An excellent cast, but Julianne Moore overacts a bit, and violates the basic "never let them catch you acting" mandate. Not a bad effort altogether, just not any of their best work. Look for Amy in Sharp Objects, some of her best work there, go back to The Professional, and Romeo is Bleeding to see Oldman in top form. Jennifer Jason Leigh, who I didn't actually recognize at first, in The Hateful Eight, Oscar nominated there. And, to be fair, on a slow night this one isn't bad.

I can't say why, when I first saw this western years ago that I thought it was well done, but not in the league with other westerns I have seen over a lot of years of watching them. (All the way back to Darlin' Clementine.) But time, and watching it a couple more times has altered my opinion of it, and now I consider it one of my favorites. I guess that "Gus", in Lonesome Dove was still on my mind, and Costner's outstanding performance in Dances with Wolves when I first saw it. Didn't realize either that Costner had directed this one. He has become one of our best actor/directors in his long career, and I really love his films. He just has that special screen presence, that makes him so watchable, and pairing him with Duval, what more could you ask for? Terrific cast, locations, photography, this one has it all. If you like westerns, or even if you don't, this one is a must see. Really enjoy it the more often I see it. That scene with the late Michael Jeter, as he reads Charlie's note about the tea set is priceless. And the script is first rate. Highly recommended.

There are some truly outstanding performances here, Amy Adams delivers as always, and the actress playing her mother is superb in creating her character, especially in her interactions with Amy. Other equally solid performances make this very watchable, but here's my issue. It's in the editing, that is sometimes confusing. Maybe I'm just more comfortable with traditional storytelling, and not having to work quite as hard to put the pieces together. I recently watched Kate Winslet in Mare of Eastwood, and found it easy to follow, and far better edited. You got it, at every turn. Not so much here. Maybe my fault. And the ending, well, I don't usually watch through the credits, but then I would have missed something. One final issue, and this may only be my sound system, but I could hardly understand some of the dialogue, especially Amma, who seems to whisper everything. I would still recommend the series, too good to miss.

I thought at the beginning of the series that the explanation for what was happening had to come down to one of two things, and sure enough I was right. I was hoping that they had come up with something more original. Bateman is a gifted actor/director, so my expectations were high, and the show is well cast, but once you get to a certain point, at least for me, my interest took a nosedive. So, to be fair, after episode four I started looking for something else to watch. But then I'm kinda hard to please, and I've seen so many films in my long life that I recognize familiar plots, and plot devices pretty quickly. And I also depend on good editing, so I can keep up with the action. This one was a bit confusing. The Kate Winslet series Mare of Easttown that I recently watched was excellent, beautifully edited, so you never got lost, but followed along every step of the way. And the actors spoke their lines clearly, articulated every syllable, so I had no issues understanding them as I did with this series in which there was far too much whispering and low volume speech, presumably for dramatic effect. Maybe my hearing is going, but I dislike leaning forward to catch what's being said. And I like actors who don't mumble. That seems popular these days, or perhaps I grew up listening to actors who spoke clearly, and distinctly, hitting every syllable, and vowel. Even Brando was understandable. But then, I'm running on. Maybe you'll love this series, and be thrilled with it. Just me, I guess, but I wasn't. Good luck. I won't condemn it as bad, it just didn't work for me. Maybe you'll love it. Hope so.

One of the many good things that you notice about this excellent film is the writing, that was penned in part by Barry Levinson, who has produced some of the best work in Hollywood. Diner, Rain Man, and maybe my favorite of his films the enchantingly nostalgic Avalon". Pacino gives one of his signature powerhouse performances as a young lawyer trying to find justice for his clients. He is ably supported by versatile character actor Jack Warden (12 Angry Men), John Forsythe as the baddie, and the lovely Christine Lahti, whom I adore. Directed by the redoubtable Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night), who, like a handful of other directors, including the aforementioned Barry Levinson, Elia Kazan, and Sydney Pollack, seems able to draw some of the most outstanding performances from his actors. Not to be overlooked are two actors who play Pacino's clients, especially Robert Christian who breaks your heart in a stellar turn as a victim of the system. Dominic Chianese (Uncle Junior from The Sopranos), is also excellent, especially in one scene involving a car wreck. You have all these moments in the film, one riveting scene after another, if you stopped to analyze them individually you have a workshop in good acting, all woven together in a heck of an entertaining film. In the 40 plus years since it's release it has lost none of its power. I saw it recently for the first time in many, many years, and rediscovered what a real gem it is. Jeffery Tambor has his moment in a scene where he and a fellow lawyer deliver some good news to Pacino, a moment of levity that will leave you in stitches. If you're fond of courthouse dramas, of really spectacular acting, and a mesmerizing story line this one is a must see. Can't recommend it more highly.

It took me a while to engage with the film, but like life, it happens while you're not looking. Other films come to mind here, underpinned as so many of them are, especially now, in this place and time, by loneliness, and loss, and the quest for something you can't quite name. You're trying to outrun something, and you can't, and at the same time you're looking for something, unwilling to admit you'll never find it. We're suspended here, in this brief space, desperate to understand it and find meaning in it, and like the poet said "Time doth little more supply than to look around you and to die." We understand, many of us, that all of life is compressed into those moments, and the weight of it often bears down on us and makes us sad. I never watch a sunset that I don't realize that one day I'll go with it. I started thinking about that, leaning against the trunk of a pecan tree in my grandfather's back yard, in the twilight, when I was about eight or nine, watching the sun falling towards the horizon. I'll think about this film in the days ahead. If you watch it, and you should, you will too.

It has been a long time since I saw this film, and I remember thinking at the time what a waste of good talent , especially in the case of Ray Milland, who had done such quality, really first rate work in earlier films. The sad reality of a good actor grown old, and forced to accept this kind of part. Carrie had great promise as well, but it never came to fruition. For me, having admired their talents in other films, it was a sad experience. This ain't bedtime for Bonzo. Honestly can't recommend this one. Try Milland in The Major and the Minor. Time better spent.

A good plot, and a surprisingly good turn for a young Tab Hunter as the restless young man, too fond of his gun, and a devoted father leaning over backwards to make allowances for him. A well done film, and one of Heflin's best roles. An excellent supporting cast of familiar character actors, all of whom turned in believable performances. Well worth your time if you're a fan of westerns, and aren't we all? Heflin made some really fine westerns, Shane I suppose being his best. A seasoned pro whose mature roles I thought were his most appealing. One small thing that I noticed about the film, and that was the guns that were used. All three of the main characters carried double action pistols that were not correct for the period when the Colt Single Action ruled the range. An oversight often made in westerns. Some directors, like the enormously talented writer/director John Milius, a firearms aficionado, are very particular about making certain that the weapons are period appropriate. Nonetheless, Gunman's Walk is recommended, and entertaining.

World War Two is without question the salient event of my life, and the memories of it, and the men and women, lie at the very center of my psyche, where they are dearest to my heart. My dad was Navy, and served in the Pacific. He and I watched Victory at Sea together when it aired in the 1950's, when I had only begun to understand it. And several of those with whom I worked over the years, were veterans who served in the Merchant Marine, and survived those dangerous crossings. This film illustrates what they endured in order to lend aid to a beleaguered ally. Tom Hanks, and his friend Gary Sinise have done more, I think, to celebrate the men and women who fought that terrible war than others for whom perhaps it is merely a part of history now. Tom Hanks wrote the script for this film, I see, leaving me to wonder if there is no end to this man's talents. It is a superbly crafted film, in the best tradition of thoughtful and entertaining war movies. And like the best of films it is "based on actual events." A Navy vet friend of mine only felt at home aboard ship, he once told me, and nowhere else. I recommend the film very highly, it should not be missed. Another splendid Tom Hanks performance, with an able cast, and impressive CGI. Weigh anchor, and see this one.

I've seen lukewarm reviews of this film, which, to my mind, is damming with faint praise. It is one of my favorite films, with outstanding performances by all the leads, including what I thought was an Oscar worthy effort by Cher, in this early outing. Streep proves herself again as a chameleon who can believably inhabit virtually any character. So far she hasn't matched Glenn Close's turn as a man, but I have no doubt that she could pull it off, although I hope she doesn't try. Cher, I thought, in this film was a revelation. And how ironic that both she and Streep were nominated as best actress only four years later, when Cher took home the top prize, and among others thanked Streep in the audience, who threw her a kiss. I liked Silkwood a lot, with it's heartfelt performances, and music score. Kurt Russell also turned in one of his best performances in support. I think you would like it too.