train464

If you sit down to watch Nora and expect to find some insight into James Joyce, you can forget it. Instead, you will find a studied "lushness" of filming, with vague, disconnected scenes that hint at what is going on. Romantic? I suppose. That would make it a chick flick. The limited use of nudity and sexual simulations would make it provocative. (But was there any uproar about the movie? I think not -- just mark it R and move on.) Joyce's writing is given only slight mention. We see he is writing, we see a publisher rejecting his work (which one? who knows? Well, it was "The Dubliners," of course, with specific objection to the story "The Dead.") We see Nora and James fighting over ... well, various things ... and his throwing the manuscript into the fire. Nora retrieves it, badly burnt but partially reconstructible. And what work was this? You won't know from the movie. And I'm not telling either! (Look it up.) It's like this throughout. It isn't made clear exactly when Nora and James were married, but there is a cutesy moment in the film where Nora slips on a wedding ring. From that we are supposed to realize that they are finally married. An unsuspecting viewer might think they were married earlier. Maybe not. Why knows? As my wife says, "I don't care. It was an exciting movie." Just let it roll over you, enjoy what you can, and move on. (The children are adorable, however.)

If you watch this TV movie you will get a slow, gentle insight into the pre-World War II period. It is beautifully done: the sets, the costuming, the acting all blend to be the late 1930's. It is a touching story, but some of the actual meaning has been left out, leaving us with a one-sided, positive feeling about the lead characters. It was a noble thing for a king to abdicate for his love, no? Well, perhaps, but the truth is that he was forced out without his fighting for the crown. (Lots of anguish, yes, but no fight.) The character of Wallis Simpson was overly simplified to make her appear to be more blameless than she was in reality, less manipulating, and attractive. I don't recall any of the rumors of her German leanings being mentioned, which may be just as well since they have been heavily discounted and are probably not true. Barring this one flaw of not presenting Mrs. Simpson as she has become known to be (and was rumored to be at the time), the movie is excellent. Schedule several days to watch it and don't try to cram it into one session. It takes a little settling time between episodes. (The documentary accompanying the movie must be seen after watching the movie. Don't watch it first!)

It's unbelievable that the production staff, crew, and a large cast of actors could sign on to this overblown movie. It is tempting; I mean, it has John Belushi in it. And Robert Stack. Dan Aykroyd starring? Directed by Spielberg? You would think this is unbeatable. You trust these people, right? Well, it is time for you and them to grow up. (To be fair, it would appear that all but Belushi DID grow up, and went on to give us a lot of good, funny, and interesting movie experiences.) However, one joke (maybe three if you stretch the point) repeated ad nauseam isn't funny for very long. Lots of running around aimlessly, screaming, explosions, and things (everything!) being knocked down or blown up for over two hours. A true blast for a six-year old, perhaps. That's it. Nothing. Let's not waste any more time on this thing...

A film? A movie? Polish? A Wedding? The correct answer is: None of the Above. This .... is a total waste of viewing time. No characterization, no development, confusing, senseless, hopeless, unfunny, poorly scripted, poorly acted; these are the notable features of this piece of fluff. If you decide to rent this whatever it is, be prepared to look confused and shut it off after 20 minutes tops. Being a film buff I lasted almost 50 minutes before giving up. Just accept that this is one of the worst "movies" made and move on. Better yet, just skip it entirely. I will admit I was taken by Lena Olin, and I like Gabriel Byrne (who just sleepwalks through this part), but all the other actors are just "there." Of course, none of them have a script to work from. It's just a bunch of nonsense phrases strung together to give them something to say.

I preferred this version more than previous versions. Any of them have handled the story beautifully, but this latest version has several things going for it. First, Keira Knightley is somewhat better as Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew Macfadyen is a wonderful, brooding Darcy. Donald Sutherland gives a solid performance, but not quite as sarcastic as Benjamin Whitrow in the previous version as Mr. Bennet. I found Alison Steadman's Mrs. Bennet (previous version) too annoying, but Brenda Blethyn in this version is just right. The other sisters are a toss-up; the pluses and minuses average out. This new version has beautiful scenery. I thought some of the directorial decisions in presenting the thoughts of the characters was extremely well done. During the dance scene with Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, for example, they begin in the crowded ballroom (the place is really jammed!) and as they dance the camera comes to take in only Elizabeth and Darcy. If you weren't alert you might think they had slipped away, outside perhaps, and were dancing alone. Then we see the end of the dance and there they are, in the crowd. It startled me at the time, but it quickly penetrated what was being "told" in the story. Touches like this were scattered throughout the film, and I liked it. Joe Wright gets the credit for directing this beautiful film. If you loved the book or have seen any other screen version of it, be sure to see this one. It will stand out among all the others.

Gritty. Real. Immoral. Just the ticket for a movie with friends. This film (see other reviews for synopsis) is largely a waste of time. A day by day travelogue reached the boring stage by Wednesday, and I was ready to leave. In a very shallow way I'm glad I sat it out, just to be sure it didn't get much better. It didn't.

First, credit goes to Thomas Haden Church who does an excellent job. Paul Giamatti does a creditable job, but not as fantastic as the reviews suggest. (Aside: I wish he had been in "Clerks.") I liked Virginia Madsen, and this film is a good stepping stone for her. We'll see from her following work if it's a "breakout" part. Sandra Oh does her usual part, solid and pleasant to watch. She is an actress you can count on to deliver. But does good acting make a good movie?

Now the bad news. Boring. Not funny. While disturbing, which is not a bad thing, it doesn't disturb for a purpose. There is neither a moral, a resolution, a redemption, just a look into the crazy garbage can of life. If this was all that was intended, why make a movie? Hand out free copies of your neighborhood tabloids.

You want raw? You want meaning and insight? Rent and see "Two Women," "La Dolca Vita," "La Strada," even "The Bicycle Thief." They have the meaningful punch this movie lacks. You want comedy? Go see "Meet the Fockers," "There's Something About Mary," etc.

There are so many better movies and ways to spend time, why waste yourself on this nonsense? How films get to be the darlings of the self-appointed elite always eludes me.

Thérèse is a difficult movie to review. It is too easy to be swept up into the content and be moved and ignore the major flaws of the movie as movie. Can a movie that is seriously flawed artistically be successful because of its content? I'd guess this one will be judged by its content --- and be highly rated. Too bad, because it is a pain to watch. First, there is the setting and music, which establishes the overall impression. Washed out beauty, uniform, and uninteresting would be my first and lasting impression. There is just no texture to the presentation. The music is like a stack of pancakes, covered with thick, cloying, sugary syrup --- without the pancakes. Second, the acting is adequate, but suffers from the same flat, uniformity of emotion and pace. One character, the murderer Pranzini, was allowed to rage. He steals the show. Third, the framing kept cutting off the tops of characters' heads. At first I thought this was a stylistic matter, and a poorly chosen one, but I came to doubt that when a scene showing Thérèse helping an old, infirm nun down a hallway actually showed us Thérèse from the nose down. I believe from that this is merely poor cinematography and poor editing.

This leaves you with the content. Here, I found I was touched. My wife, who is rather knowledgeable about Saint Thérèse, assures me that the screenplay follows the autobiography closely. There is one "cheat" in the film. It makes it appear that Thérèse, after being turned down in her appeal to the bishop to be admitted to the convent at Carmel, proceeds to go to the Pope to ask permission. While her petitioning the Pope did happen, the trip which included visiting the Pope was actually part of a tour of Europe that her father took Thérèse on. This is a small liberty, but would seem to emphasize the spoiling of Thérèse even more than she truly was by her father.

I suspect a lot of people will go see this movie and love it because of the content. They should also read the book.

This typical Mamet film delivers a quiet, evenly paced insight into what makes a confidence man (Joe Mantegna) good. Explored as a psychological study by a noted psychologist (Lindsay Crouse), it slowly pulls her into his world with the usual nasty consequences. The cast includes a number of the players found is several of Mamet's films (Steven Goldstein, Jack Wallace, Ricky Jay, Andy Potok, Allen Soule, William H. Macy), and they do their usual good job. I loved Lindsay Crouse in this film, and have often wondered why she didn't become a more noted player than she has become. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places!

The movie proceeds at a slow pace, with flat dialog, yet it maintains a level of tension throughout which logically leads to the bang-up ending. You'd expect a real let down at the ending, but I found it uplifting and satisfying. I love this movie!

As a kid I read The Magus, which raised the issue of where do reality and fantasy start and end. It was the beginning of my love of confidence men stories. I thrill to the complexities of a well done scam, the more complex the better. If you like Mission Impossible, The Sting, The Spanish Prisoner, et. al., and my long-time personal favorite, House of Games, you will love Matchstick Men. Nicolas Cage gives his usual strong, slightly confused performance of a confidence man beset by nervous ticks and phobias whose world unravels when is 14-year old daughter from a failed marriage suddenly enters his life. The daughter is admirably played by Alison Lohman, who is perfect for this part. Her previous work really didn't impress me much, but based on this performance she is due for some good work ahead. The rest of the cast is even and passible. Overall, it's one of those fun movies that holds up in retrospect and makes sense. I even loved the ending, which was an understated surprise. Even if a few scenes were deleted that set up the ending, it still works all by itself. Don't miss this one!

The movie is good fun, even it does involve cold-blooded murder. The beautiful villainess Hilda Courtney (Patricia Morison) and Mr. Holmes (the smooth Basil Rathbone) meet each other trick-for-trick and the clues are hidden in a artful way. It's highly improbably that the code specified would really work, but we'll suspend our disbelief for this one. Nigel Bruce is his usual bumbling Dr. Watson, and the flow of the story is fast and sensible. The only flaw I would carp about is the rather easy escape that Sherlock Holmes effects at the end. It took him only two minutes to escape from his "dred predicament." Well, it's only a 72 minute movie! I guess they all had to hurry. They still had time to insert a cute busker's song, "You Never Know Who You'll Meet."

**Semi spoiler follows** The suspense of the film is not done with the usual slow pan and shock, but with clever sequencing. For instance, when Mrs. Courtney goes into a shop to locate a missing music box (there are three, and combined they contain the clues needed to retrieve a fortune in the form of the plates of the Bank of Englang's five pound note). It appears she has it, then not, then has it again, then not again. Well done! The direction by Roy William Neill (who directed most of the Sherlock Holmes films, if not all of them starring Rathbone) gets the credit here. Worth a rainy day rental.

This film, produced only three years after sound entered the movies, is entertaining and thoughtful. It makes good use of sound effects and has great visual effects as well. The flight scenes are impressive. Hughes flew a plane in this film (but crashed it) and three other pilots were killed during filming. The scenes of dozens of tiny aircraft swarming in the sky are still breathtaking. The plot is standard good-guys/bad-guys but adds some sensitivity to all parties. We have groups fighting a war in the air, and not too happy to be doing it. But they do their jobs, and give their lives for victory. The scene of Germans abandoning their airship is particularly wrenching and affective. Some token love interests and the usual inept comedy characters round out the cast, which all stood up to the task as well as anyone in 1930.

Jean Harlow gets her first billing in this film (she's one of my all time favorites), so it is her breakthrough movie.

Not a keeper, but see it if you can.

This is a strange movie. It is a moving picture, in that the pictures move, and it is a moving picture, in that when the picture is still we are moved. A large part of this "movie" is actually still pictures for us to view and be moved. It is like a short trip to the Rijksmuseum to see the Dutch masters. There is the patron Van Ruijven who is a Frans Hals study. The clouds are clearly van Ruisdael, the crowd scenes evoke Jan Steen, and scene after scene is Rembrandt. The lighting is the sharp contrast of light and dark, generated in domestic scenes by the presence of windows only on the canal side of the row houses. In all, it is a fair introduction to art history of 17th century Dutch painting. Unfortunately, the movie has no coherent plot. Each beautiful still-life, domestic scene, or portrait we are treated to fits into a mosaic that is supposed to tell a story. This technique leaves much to the viewers imagination. Too much. We see the family interactions of Vermeer, daughter, wife, and mother-in-law but the overall meaning is lost. Vermeer appears to be in turn brow-beaten, adored, or ignored by his wife. It could be that all three emotions apply, but no balance between them is shown. We could only guess and create for ourselves which is predominant, which are transitory, which are untrue. The interactions between each of the pairs of persons are equally undefined and vague. There is clearly a sexual tension between Vermeer and Griet, the serving girl, but isn't there always some tension between any man and any woman? (Well, perhaps not.) A most daring moment of the film comes (and quickly goes) when Vermeer nearly -- mind you, nearly -- touches Griet's hand. This is not the stuff of passion as, say, in "The Postman Always Rings Twice." The outcome of this tension? Well, you tell me. I didn't see any. The film reminds us of beauty. It is worth seeing as any beautiful picture is worth seeing, moving or not.

This movie would get less than a 5, except its production values are okay: average filming, average editing, average script, etc. But the whole intent of the movie and its "mystery" is so blatently clear that there is no mystery to it at all. It was like being hit in the face with a fish while being shouted at: "It's a fish!!" What follows is a spoiler (or would be if there were any chance that a viewer didn't know what's going on).

The whole thing is a silly, obvious take-off of scripture done in such a way that you couldn't misunderstand it if (as the Red Queen might say) you tried with both feet. This makes it a pleasant bore. At best. The miraculous Joshua (about as close as you can get to Yeshua in English) walks stately through the little town of Beth..., pardon, Auburn performing miraculous deeds. The local priests act out stereotypes of Pharisee and nincompoop, the local folk act out helpless, feckless drones, until Joshua shows them the way, healing the blind, reviving the dead, with a self-assured and self-effacing attitude. All the cutesy touches make it worse: the lost Maggie falling for him, twelve at his last supper, the religious cummunity confronting him ("Do you work on the Sabbath?"), etc. His being called to Rome to see the Pope is all out of scope. Well, it's a fantasy, but without any excitement, wonder, or mystery that makes a fantasy worth watching. The Book (not the one the movie is based on) has so much more to offer -- just read it.

Beautiful scenery and so-so acting cannot hold this episodic, poorly edited film together. The jumps from scene to scene, place to place, with little to guide the viewer with a timeline makes this fairly predictable mish-mosh a chore to watch. The book may be great, but skip this adaptation.

This is one of those films where you can see each plot twist coming before the last is finished. The writers probably sat around saying "...and wouldn't it be funny if ..." and then just added another episode in this episodic picture. But it is fun, light, and doesn't try to press an ideology about human relationships on the viewer. What a relief! And the ending leaves a nice gap which the viewer can fill for himself. Perfect, to my mind. Fun fluff.

This film redeems any lingering doubts left over from Hitchcock's slander of birds. The birds are beautiful, determined, poignant, and fixating. Travelling with them is a benefit not to be missed. One word of warning though. I came out of the theater with tired arms, from all that flying.

Although a true B movie, somehow this one works at its highest level. After all these years it is fun and entertaining. The movie has the honor of having one of my favorite lines of all cinema: "I used to dance before royalty, now I cast pearls before swine." You have to hear it to understand. Get this one! (And who changed the title?)

A highly predictable, but pleasant enough trick story line. The idea was done to death in films both before and after, but can be forgiven because this was a patriotic push prior to our entering WWII. Not really a must for Wallace Berry fans, it's still nice to see a good character acter carry a movie.

For those nights when you have absolutely nothing to do, this predictable, pointless comedy will fill the time nicely. You get to look at Goldie Hawn. Kurt Russell is there for the ladies, but he's not my type. Before devoting some time to watching it, you might check out the "memorable lines." That will give you the clue you need.

As a kid I loved those Warner Bros. and RKO Pictures cops and robbers movies. In a way, I still do. Some are real classics, but many, like The Threat, were churned out for the likes of me -- age 8. If you're over 8 this one's a waste of time. I still like Michael O'Shea, though.

This little comedy was perfect for its time. Grossly overacted by Carole Lombard, but held in check by the understated performance of William Powell, and supported by some very witty lines, it is still fun to watch. The other actors support the film in steady studio-character actor fashion, with one of the most annoying laughs on film from Alice Brady until Tom Hulce in Amadeus. A bit preachy at the end, it shows its New Deal era background. Don't miss it if you can.

When it was first released this movie had two big selling points: it was in 3-D, and it was real science fiction written by Ray Bradbury. The "surprise" ending that the aliens were as "human" as we (i.e. not monsters in the sense of the horror film genre) has become passe. It is probable that this will never again be seen in 3-D, which is a pity. It was well done. The movie is no more than a curiosity now. The cartoon which accompanied this picture is more interesting. It was a Bugs Bunny space adventure in which Marvin the Martian was first introduced. And it was funny. I think I'd rather see the cartoon again.

I fondly remember the movie and particularly liked the conceit used to open communications with the aliens (the number sequence for pi). It was also thrilling to think that world peace could come about. On reseeing the movie over the years, and with the actual passing of the USSR and soviet communism, the movie doesn't really hold up. It's in the museum of propaganda films now. The closing screen was "The Beginning."

Gentle, pleasant comedy of the war era with one of my favorite old-time actors (Betty Hutton) singing one of my favorite old-time songs ("Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief"). Large cast of the minor stars of the time.

An interesting period picec showing us what was amazing in 1938. Gosh, Ma, a fake accident ring suing for $25,000!!! I guess projected into the 21st century it would amount to a lot of money. The acting would amount to pure 21st century ham. Nice to see the president as a hard-working newcomer.