Costu-2

This movie certainly has the gloomy look down pat! Deborah Kerr is, as always, quite good, and Donald Pleasence and Flora Robson register in their rather smallish parts. But, my goodness! What the devil is going on in this movie? The story is as murky as its castle setting. David Niven seems to be sleepwalking through the film. Ultimately, VERY confusing and VERY unsatisfying. NOT recommended, unless you really like the off-beat and dark.

This is not perhaps the BEST example of screwball comedy, but it has enough going for it that anyone looking for some light entertainment ought not be -too- disappointed! David Niven and Jane Wyman have a superb chemistry. Some of the scenes are laugh-out-loud funny, even when (as, for example, the scene with the animal trap in the park) one can easily guess what will happen next. And there is a very satisfying ending. Recommended!

Myrna Loy and Melvyn Douglas are fantastic, respectively, in this screwball comedy about a career woman with a phantom husband and the man from Wapakoneta, Ohio, who decides to fill-the-bill. The subsidiary roles are wonderfully taken as well. The only quibble I have with the movie is that it is a -wee- bit long for its material, but viewers looking for some light diversion will not be disappointed by this farcical laugh-romp.

Who would guess that a SILENT-era version of a Sigmund Romberg musical chestnut like 'The Student Prince' could be so wonderful? The acting -- especially by the stunningly handsome Ramon Novarro in the title role and the glowing Norma Shearer as his love interest, a humble beer-hall girl -- is uniformly excellent. The settings and costumes are exceptional as well. The overall sepia glow that this film has adds to the sense that the viewer really IS seeing and experiencing "Old Heidelberg". The movie has it all : a little drama, a little humor, a little romance -- it is a confection that anyone who is willing to explore silent films is bound to find enjoyably sweet and memorable. HIGHLY recommended! (The version I saw also had a fantastic 'new' score by Carl Davis that added considerably to the atmosphere while supporting the action.)

Although not a great fan of the genre, I found this futuristic suspense story quite satisfying. Particularly strong was the acting. Standouts include Eric Roberts, as a loving father desperately trying to save his son's life, then caught in the extreme, life-threatening consequences of his choices ; Diane Venora, as a high-level "health-care" corporation executive with a conscience ; and Cary Elwes, in an especially chilling turn, as an enforcer. There are several plot twists that keep the viewer guessing, and the tension in many of the scenes borders on the heart-stopping. There are a number of implausibilities and unlikely coincidences, but the headlong pace of the movie keeps one from dwelling on these. Recommended!

This *should* have been an amazingly funny movie...but it falls flat on its face. (In fact, I stopped watching it halfway through, which is something I rarely do...) -- Bill Murray plays Jack Corcoran, a second-rate motivational speaker who is bequeathed an elephant by his father (whom he had presumed to be dead before he was born) ; he then has one week to get the ponderous pachyderm across the country. His adventures on the way are only mildly amusing at best. Janeane Garofalo's considerable comedic talents go largely untapped. Anita Gillette is impressive in her small role as Jack's mother (who has a lot of explaining to do), and Pat Hingle stands out as a former circus associate of Jack's father. -- Perhaps the second half of the movie was better than the first, but I find that hard to believe...

This is a modernist twist on the classic Stevenson tale, with Tim Daly playing mild-mannered perfume researcher Richard Jacks, who is turned into the stunning (but increasingly lethal) Helen Hyde (played by the gorgeous Sean Young) when he drinks a formula bequeathed to him by his greatgrandfather, Dr. Jekyll. (Are we to assume that this is the ORIGINAL Dr. Jekyll??) Despite a fairly strong cast -- which includes Harvey Fierstein and Stephen Toboloswky as colleagues of Dr. Jacks at the perfumery and Polly Bergen in a scene-stealing turn as an important cosmetics executive --,, some neat morphing technology, and some sporadically hilarious moments, the film does not fulfill the promise of its interesting premise. OK comedy with horror aspects -- but nothing special, I'm afraid...

It's difficult to know where to start in evaluating this film. It is bloody and violent (but so were the times). The highest-ranking British officers depicted reveal reprehensible characteristics despite their pretensions to gentility. The running time is a bit on the long side. The musical score by John Williams seems an overly well-worn rehash of some of his other compositions, namely the soundtracks to "Star Wars" and "Far & Away." Although the period is, on the whole, faithfully rendered, there are nonetheless some jarring anachronisms. -- Yet, to focus on these elements is to miss the very real power of the central story, not the Revolutionary War per se, but a family drama. Mel Gibson is simply superb as Benjamin Martin, a former fighter in the French and Indian Wars who wants to place his brutal reputation behind him and focus on raising his large family in peace while war swirls around him. Mr. Gibson manages the conflicting emotions of his role with great mastery. Two of his scenes in the movie, quite frankly, moved me to tears. -- In addition, the other roles are well-acted, especially Heath Ledger as Martin's eldest son, and Joely Richardson as Charlotte, the gutsy sister of Martin's late wife. -- Sadly, it's probably too early to talk about Oscar nominations, but certainly Mel Gibson deserves one for this acting tour-de-force!

The opening scenes of this movie, set in inner-city Chicago, are somewhat painful and intense to watch. The wonderful cast communicates very well the conflicts and struggles of living in an urban setting and trying to improve one's lot. -- By contrast, the southern scenes (which comprise 2/3 of the movie's length) are more bucolic, on the surface at least, but the pain and struggle of the human condition is very much in evidence here as well. But also redemption, and that is what makes this movie such a positive viewing experience. -- The cast is superlative and the story-telling strong. Recommended!

This is by no means the best movie I've ever seen, but I must confess (however guiltily) that I enjoyed it a great deal more than the reviewers I consulted led me to expect I might. -- Kiefer Sutherland and Woody Harrelson are appealing as the two male leads, old rodeo friends who had a major falling out years before but now find themselves teamed up to help an old friend find his daughter. Their adventures in urban New York City are, by turns, humorous and suspenseful. Dylan McDermott demonstrates some considerable acting range as a sleazy weasel. The inevitable chase scene through downtown Manhattan somehow seems fresh and exciting. -- No one will confuse this piece with High Art, but one could spend one's time in worse ways...

This picture seemingly has everything -- a little drama, a little comedy, some interpersonal tension to keep things moving... in short, a slice of life that is engaging and involving and, ultimately, deeply moving and uplifting. In a strong ensemble cast such as this, it is difficult to single out any performance without seeming to disparage another, but Steven Martin as a dad who strives to give his kids a larger paternal presence than he had, Dianne Wiest as a single mother struggling to give her children the best life possible, and Keanu Reeves as a somewhat flaky dude with his heart in the right spot when it counts, seemed standouts to me. You'll laugh, you'll cry, but, whatever you do : Don't miss this one!

Every so often, a film comes along that seems to have just about everything : a compelling story, incredible acting, fine sets and costumes and music. And -Gladiator- is such a film. Russell Crowe gives an extraordinarily textured performance as the central character Maximus, a warrior-poet who chooses private life over public ambition and then finds his world turned upside down. (IMHO, Mr. Crowe should have been the winner of this year's Best Actor Oscar for his work in -The Insider- ; the performance he gives here merely serves to reinforce that conviction.) Connie Nielsen is radiant as Lucilla, daughter to the late emperor Marcus Aurelius (finely played by Richard Harris). Djimon Hounsou, Derek Jacobi, and the late Oliver Reed also deserve kudos for their performances. But it is Joaquin Phoenix whom I found the most intriguing. His Commodus is that film rarity : a "round" villain...if indeed that word even applies in this case. The character's motivations can be understood, and, even if the choices Commodus makes cannot be approved, at least one can sympathize with the twistedness foisted upon him that leads to such choices. Nine stars out of 10. (Be forewarned: The violence is a bit heavy-going at times...but the Romans didn't build and maintain a worldwide empire by inviting folks to a tea-party!)

(This review is being written after my second viewing of this film...) The acting in this movie is, let's face it, superior. Nicole Kidman is chillingly fantastic as a media wannabe who'll stop at nothing to reach her goals, even motivating three misfit teens into murdering her husband. After having seen -Gladiator-, I was especially interested in paying closer attention to Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of one of the troubled trio; he, too, is a standout. -- There are parts of this movie that I found rather laugh-out-loud funny; some of it is witty; the portrayal of society and its obsession with fame/notoriety, getting ahead, etc., is scathing at times. But I must confess that I did not particularly like the film as an entire package, for reasons I cannot quite define. Once again, the sum of the parts is less than the parts themselves, I guess. **** out of 10. (Sorry, Nicole!)

The acting in this film is superior. The sets and costumes are superior. Why, then, is this film so unengaging? It has to be the writing...or perhaps the direction...I'm really not sure. All I know is that I was keenly disappointed, and very glad that I waited to see this on video. (By the way, much of this film was done in Philadelphia, and the place looks GREAT!) Only for the most loyal Oprah fans! **** out of 10.

This film begins with an interesting premise, adds to it superior acting, direction, and cinematography, and tops it all off with an unexpected plot twist at the end that is quite chilling. Denzel Washington turns in another fine performance as a Philadelphia policeman confronted with things he does not understand. Embeth Davidtz is a standout as the theology professor who helps him start thinking in supernatural terms. The Philadelphia backdrop is authentic (take it from this native son!) Kudos to Tan Dun, too, for the hauntingly beautiful original score. Highly recommended. 8 out of 10.

This is -- to date, at least -- the best movie I've seen all year. The father/son connection has been hyped in the media, and, while it is strong and touching (my eyes misted several times), it's no "Field of Dreams," IMHO. However, the performances of Dennis Quaid and Jim Caviezel are EXCELLENT. There is a certain suspension of disbelief required with respect to the sci-fi ("time travel") aspects of the story, but I found the action to be fast-paced, suspense-thrilled, and very involving. Highly recommended!

One of my biggest personal pet peeves about cinematic adaptations of novels is their infidelity to their original sources. Let it be said that _Mansfield Park_, unlike recent movie adaptations of _Sense & Sensibility_ (1995) and _Persuasion_ (1995), plays a little fast and loose with the text of Jane Austen's novel. Director/screenwriter Patricia Rozema has mixed in some of Austen's letters and notebooks along with the book-text ; as a result, the central character of Fanny Price is more a reflection of Jane Austen than Jane Austen herself may have intended. -- With this previso aside, however, _Mansfield Park_ is well worth viewing. The acting (with the possible exception of the film's Edmund, Jonny Lee Miller, who seems a trifle too bland) is top-notch, especially Embeth Davidtz and Alessandro Nivola as the worldly Crawford siblings, Frances O'Connor as Fanny, and playwright Harold Pinter as Sir Thomas. Gorgeous costumes and sets, evocative music. Costume-drama buffs need not hesitate!

Very suspenseful movie, well-acted and well-filmed. Matt Damon is to be congratulated for his gutsy move in playing the title role...and at times, somehow, through sheer skill, managing to evoke audience sympathy for a thoroughly UNsympathetic character. He deserves an Oscar nomination at least...if not the statuette itself. -- This is, however, not a film for the squeamish, so viewer beware!

This is the timeless Dickens story...splendidly told! The cast is uniformly excellent, even down to the smaller roles that may only offer an actor a scene or two. But it is Patrick Stewart's show ALL THE WAY! Not only does he dominate every scene he is in by his sheer presence, but his interpretation of the character of Ebenezer Scrooge lends depth and believability to the old miser and his complete transformation, where others have veered toward caricature. The music, the costumes, the sets -- all are of first quality. Highly recommended!

In addition to being an enjoyable movie for the story alone (and the creative treatment of the subject matter), "Pleasantville" also presents a number of interesting ideas for the thoughtful viewer to ponder afterwards : the nature of prejudice, what it is that makes us human, what it means to love another -- just to suggest three. -- The acting is uniformly superb, especially on the part of Toby Maguire and Joan Allen (yet another underrated actress!). Randy Newman's score well-deserved its Academy Award nomination, as it is, by turns, both a successful pastiche of 1950s TV music and a moving lyrical commentary on the action. The sole objection to be lodged against the film is that it seems a trifle too long. Otherwise, an enjoyable, eminently watchable, and ultimately intriguing movie.

Frankly, I enjoyed this film -- despite the ineffective animation (at times), the feminist spin on the Arthurian legend, the rampant anachronisms, and the occasional intrusion of rather bland musical numbers. The story kept my attention, and I particularly liked the contributions of Cary Elwes, Pierce Brosnan, Jane Seymour, and, as that quirky two-headed dragon, Eric Idle and Don Rickles (an inspired pairing, if there ever was one!). It's no "Beauty and the Beast," but I can think of worse ways to spend an hour or so...

The performances in this film are, for the most part, worthwhile. Robin Wright is radiant, Morgan Freeman solid, and Stockard Channing makes the most of her role, to the point that I think it was worthy of an Oscar nomination. (Why is this woman's craftsmanship so underrated? I'd like to know...) And I liked John Lynch as the artist. But there are some really dull stretches here that might have been helped with more secure, tighter writing. This was a colorful era -- and the costumes and settings in the film seem appropriate -- but the story is so bland that I found myself nodding off from time to time. -- The biggest puzzle to me is : Why call it "Moll Flanders" after Daniel Defoe's book/heroine, when the story is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE the book? Overall, a disappointment. There's some good meat in this stew, but, in the end, it makes for only so-so movie-watching...

It was very difficult to decide how to rate this movie. I'd not seen the Cary Grant / Deborah Kerr version (except for the little snippets that appear in "Sleepless in Seattle"), so my opinion was not colored by the inevitable comparisons... It's just that the first half of the movie struck me as being incredibly *bad* : it was poorly written in particular. Once Katherine Hepburn appeared on the scene, the film began to improve quite noticeably, and the last half was considerably better, with superb performances, especially from the two principals. I've never been a big Warren Beatty fan, but Annette Bening is WONDERFUL! (I think I've fallen in love!!!) -- To sum up, the first half of the movie rates a 3 in my book, the second half an 8 -- hence my overall grade of 5.

Visually stunning movie...and Brad Pitt, et al, did a good job in the acting department, but... it is simply TOO LONG! It takes 2/3 or so of its time to demonstrate that Brad's character is a real jerk, then, in the remaining 1/3, shows how he changes. Unfortunately, the long build-up seriously dilutes the impact of the conclusion. (Still, I will confess to having a lump rise in my throat during the scene in which Harrar visits his son, unwraps the Dalai Lama's parting gift [his prized "Clair de lune" music box], and leaves it for the boy...)

Ugh! What a mess! Only Angela Lansbury among the major cast members stands out. Cybill Shepherd seems to have the "madcap" part down, but too often she is merely silly rather than funny. As for Elliott Gould, he seems completely miscast, and acts as if he wandered in from another movie. This is hardly an improvement of -- or even an enlightening insight into -- the Hitchcock original. Only intermittently entertaining, but, by all means, see it if you're a Lansbury fan : she's wonderful!