smatysia

A decent science-fiction film for its time, even if a bit preachy. I would say that it pushes the views of the movement that at the time was known as anti-anti-Communism, which did not feel that Communism presented any real threat to the West, in spite of its openly stated goal to conquer the world. These people claimed that they were not Communist sympathizers, but in most cases really were.

I liked Patricia Neal's performance. Apparently, she thought it was a totally forgettable flying-saucer movie at the time, but even so she did not just mail it in. The effects were super-cheesy, but we get spoiled by modern cinema effects, and I cannot hold it against the movie.

Somewhat surprisingly, I had never seen this film until now. I did read the James Jones novel it was based on some decades ago. The book was excellent, and I highly recommend it. When you make a film out of an epic novel, however you can't put everything in, or the movie would run ten hours. Also, of course, some of the mature themes in the book were not permitted to be in movies in the early Fifties. Even so, I liked the film a lot. There were some excellent performances here from Deborah Kerr, Donna Reed, Frank Sinatra, and in a smaller part, Ernest Borgnine. I remembered Borgnine from his TV show in the Sixties(?) where he was a jovial, easygoing type, even in wartime, so it was a bit jarring seeing him play an evil, sadistic character. (For a lengthier and more involved treatment by him of a similar character, check him out in "Emperor of the North")

I was completely unaware of this film. Too bad, because I liked it pretty well. Humphrey Bogart shows off impressive range. And I was also unfamiliar with the spectacularly beautiful Gloria Grahame. She had movie-star level pulchritude, yet with at least a bit of understatement. I don't know if I'd call this one classically noir, but it did have a certain amount of that vibe, even though the settings were mostly quite upper-class.

Early on I noted that the plot was reminiscent of the Hitchcock film (and du Maurier novel) "Rebecca". I see that many others thought so as well. It seems a little bit picky to point out when an old film does something like having the actors obviously in front of a projection. We are spoiled by unlimited location budgets and/or CGI. Anyway, the location shots on Ceylon are beautiful, as was Elizabeth Taylor. Overall, it is a fairly standard mid-Fifties melodrama.

I guess it was pretty good. Nice photography, nice scenery, good acting. Somewhat interesting the way in which they mixed the "real" and the mythological. I usually tend to like historical fiction movies, so that probably moved my rating up by a star. While I can't really put my finger on what might be wrong with this film, I probably won't ever watch it again.

This one hearkens back to the "screwball" comedies of previous decades. Walter Matthau was good, as always. Goldie Hawn as the wide-eyed, ditzy ingenue was excellent, and gorgeous as well. But the real star was Ingrid Bergman, whose presence got me to watch the film in the first place. She has that "it" thing, the movie-star charisma that captivates an audience. She was still very beautiful, twenty-five years after "Casablanca". But then again, I'm over sixty, and if I'd seen the movie at 25, I might have just considered her an old lady, and not paid much attention to her. It would have been my loss, though.

Well, I've long complained that Hollywood puts out little but comic book films or sequels hoping to cash in. While this is obviously not Hollywood, I still have to give it credit for being different. I wasn't expecting the explicit scene that begins the film, but I'm not a prude, so it's OK. The film then follows the main character around a city, presumably Bucharest, as she does completely mundane things. Many of the bystanders are staring at the camera, so I suppose that they simply shot the film on the streets without any notice. The second part is an artsy montage totally unconnected to the plot or characters. It likely has some deep significance to somebody (Romanians?) but completely escaped me. The final act went back to the plot. I found it weird overall, with some amusing stuff at the end.

Saw this long ago on cable but didn't remember much about it. And although I do remember the comic strip, I was never a regular reader of it. They pulled out all the stops on making this, with a cast of stars, original songs by Stephen Sondheim, and meticulous sets with the background paintings seamlessly melding into the live action. An almost unrecognizable Al Pacino chewed the scenery mercilessly. Overall, it was just OK, though. Warren Beatty seemed miscast as Tracy. Glenne Headly was good as Tess. You could say that a lot of the film was cartoonish, but I'm sure that was the point. Oh, and Madonna. I've never cared all that much for her looks, but with the costuming and makeup here, she was gorgeous.

A highly fictionalized biopic of Al Capone. Seeing Ben Gazzara in this called to mind his role as the small-town crime boss in Roadhouse. He did truly chew the scenery in this one, but then I think you have to in order to play Capone, as his violence and psychopathy is well-known. Susan Blakely was lovely and did the gangster moll thing quite well. Overall, it's decent but not great.

I saw this in a theater in '75. I was 16 or so. I liked it at the time. But I also read the book at some point in the '70's, and find it much more memorable than the movie. Susann's books were, at that time, considered trashy fiction. They wouldn't raise a single eyebrow today. But the movie, which I just watched again, wasn't much like I remembered. Props to Brenda Vacarro for her joie de vivre, and a little bit to David Janssen for his acting chops. I did like Alexis Smith in this one. But the rest of the cast seemed to just mail it in, even Kirk Douglas, who we all know was a phenomenal actor. Deborah Raffin has an excuse because of her age, and maybe she meant to play the ingenue that way, but, well, let's just say that I do not recommend this film.

Okay, yes, this movie has plot holes big enough to drive a bus through. Roger Ebert in his review called it "cheerfully preposterous". Eastwood (as director) certainly knows that it is preposterous. He's selling it as characters and action, not as realistic. I've always thought that it was a good watch, even so. (First saw it on cable in the early Eighties) I was highly impressed with Sondra Locke. Excellent acting doing the best that one could with not-always-serious material. She was also very beautiful, if in a bit of an unconventional way.

I guess it's an OK Bond film. Like most people, I miss Sean Connery. Roger Moore usually came across as smarmy and smug, but he seems to be rather less so in this one. Full disclosure: I have never seen any of the later Bond films with Dalton, Brosnan, or Craig, so cannot make any comparisons with them. Barbara Bach was certainly beautiful and performed her role well. Some of the effects seemed a bit obvious and a bit cheesy, but that's not really a fair criticism. I'm sure that they spared no expense and did as well as the technology of the times allowed.

I liked the film fairly well. A lot of people are saying that Clint Eastwood was too old for this role, and, well, they're right. I realize that he's playing a character who is 70-ish, rather than his true 90-ish. But even so, a character who moves the way Eastwood does, and who has had a broken back, well, I don't believe he can make a living breaking wild mustangs. Clint is still a talented actor and director, so with some minor suspension of disbelief, you can enjoy the film. The child actor was adequate. I do have to rave about the performance of the lovely Natalia Traven. She was probably the best part of the movie.

Well, it IS different. I was going to say that it was nice to see a movie that wasn't made from a comic book, until I saw in the credits that it WAS made from a comic book. But you know what I mean. There is a lot of invective spewed at this movie in the previous comments. I didn't think it was that bad. The cinematography was nice, the direction was relatively unobtrusive, and the acting was OK, even from the child actors. Not a star-studded cast, which is OK. The only actor I recognized was Ken Leung, playing half of the obligatory interracial couple. It seemed to me to be an OK science fiction type film, nothing great, but worth seeing if you don't demand "superheroes" in your movie.

This has everything you'd want in a Western. There are the evil bad guys, the stoic good guys, one being a conflicted anti-hero, the love interest, and the climactic struggle. Costner was good as he usually is, as was Benning. But Robert Duvall absolutely MADE this film. It's worth watching for his performance alone.

This film has a cast that includes some big stars from the Eighties and Nineties on the downslope of their careers. (Ray Liotta, John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Rebecca De Mornay) But they all do creditable turns within the material. I will say that I did not really see either of the big plot twists coming, but then again, I do not watch a movie (or read a book) trying to guess what happens next, as so many others seem to do. Overall, I liked it OK, and give it credit for being, if not completely original, at least different from the usual fare.

I'm not sure I know what to say about this film. Lovely Italian scenery, yes. When the film goes into Emily's reminisces, or dreams, or suppositions, it signals us by switching to black-and-white, but I was often unsure of which it was. Perhaps that was the point. I can't say that I really enjoyed the movie, but I can't help but think that I'm missing something.

This movie did nothing for me, which surprised me. I like some of the cast, and I get, and am not bothered by, the setting and framing of the film as a version of/homage to the romantic comedies of the late Fifties/early Sixties. But for reasons that escape me, I was bored by this movie throughout. I suppose it isn't fair to pan a movie without giving reasons, but thta's all I have.

A fairly charming character study. I'm a bit surprised that I felt this way about it, since none of the characters are particularly likable. Many will consider it slow, as there are no car chases, explosions, or comic book heroes. Maybe that's part of its charm. Lovely photography of really nice scenery in the South of France. The lesbian and polyamory angles will appeal to some, and turn others off. None of the acting hit any false notes, at least for me.

I thought that, overall, this was a pretty good film. It built tension well, in spite of its inherent predictability. Acting was good throughout by a cast of German actors I had never heard of. Special shout-out to Andrea Sawatzki in a small role. The main villain looked like the quintessential Nazi, which I suppose was deliberate. With recent American cinema being almost exclusively hyper-"action" thrillers or comic-book movies (or both), it was a nice change of pace, even if it is a bit uncomfortable at times.

Apparently, to many commenters here, if a film doesn't have car chases, explosions, and gunfights, then "nothing much happens". This film is a historical romance and character study. The setting is upstate New York in 1856. The characters are backwoods farmers. You can't really call it "frontier" by this time. No one worries about or mentions any possibility of Indian attacks and no one seems to routinely carry arms. It very much brings home the raw deal (by modern standards) of being a woman in the not-all-that-distant past. Excellent, if sometimes low-key, acting in the main roles by Katherine Waterston and Vanessa Kirby. Although they fall in love, I doubt that either character is actually a lesbian as we know the term today. Photography is excellent, and direction is unobtrusive. Worth seeing.

I've never cared much for the gore subgenre of horror films, and that holds true here, so if you think my rating is too low, I will concede the point. Having said that, this film doesn't go nearly as far overboard with gore as many do. Plus, the subject matter leads many of the characters into existentialist discussions, which carries some measure of interest. Photography is nice and the effects are good for their time. I can't really recommend it, but if you like horror films it might be worth your while. I've certainly seen many which were MUCH worse.

I had no idea what I was getting myself into. Beautifully shot and superbly acted. I was thoroughly hooked, but yet didn't understand. Towards the end, I couldn't keep track of the actors/characters. I was thinking "weird, weird, weird. Only after later reading the information on IMDb, did I even remotely understand it. It will require another viewing.

The plot and acting are not terrible. Eminem did a reasonably good job at acting his role, putting him in the company of many singers and athletes. Cher, Madonna, Shwarzenegger, and many others do reasonably well at acting, which makes me think that it's really not that hard. I'm not saying anyone could do it, (I don't think I could) and yes, some people are very talented at it. Also, is the "rap battle" really a thing? And if so, are they always this insulting? It seems like this sort of thing would get a lot of people shot. Full disclosure, I am an older white guy in the South who has zero appreciation or affinity for rap "music", which dragged down my rating for this film considerably, so feel free to ignore it if you do not agree.

Seeing Robin Williams playing the deeply disturbed sad sack is a little creepy in its own right considering his later suicide. The film had pretty good photography, decent acting, and interesting direction. I suppose a young person would be mystified by the whole concept of film photography and film developing. The film largely, though, failed to hold my interest.