mw1561

I just saw this film for the first time and I was disappointed. I was expecting more of a "film noir" type of movie. Instead I got a too-complicated plot that made less and less sense as the film went along. And the love angle was far too weak. Robert Mitchum goes to Stockholm, meats a girl, and less than 24 hours later she is madly in love with him, and the film makes scant effort to explain why.

Basically the plot involves the blackmail of men who were closet supporters of Hitler. But after the demise of the Third Reich one could assume that uncovering their identities would take on less importance, but if that were the case then there would be no movie.

This movie is spy vs. Spy vs. Spy, with good guys appearing as bad guys, and so forth. It's been done many time before and in much better ways, such as The Third Man.

I just saw this for the first time on PBS the other day, and I too must agree with other reviewers when I say that James Brown was ASTONISHING!!! I only wish that every person out there who thinks Michael Jackson is (or was) the greatest performer has an opportunity to see James Brown in action.

Most of the music was "live" with no audio enhancers and no lip syncing. The way music should be; you either got the talent to pull it off or else you don't.

One of the most amazing aspects of the film was that 99% of the 2600 people in the audience were white, suburban teenage girls, and I suspect that it was their first exposure to black artists like James Brown, Chuck Berry, Marvin Gaye, and Smokey Robinson. They were probably there for the Rolling Stones, but the Stones had the misfortune of following James Brown, and Mick Jagger's stage performance looked incredibly lame when pitted against the "Hardest working man in Show business"

This is a movie that attempts to do nothing except exploit the Hendrix legend to make some money. It is a Walt Disney version of his life that tries to say as little as possible and offend as few as possible.

Jimi Hendrix was a very complex man who was a brilliant musician. I had the pleasure of seeing him perform in 1967. He was the only person I ever saw who could play lead guitar while singing simultaneously. Having said that, this movie I think is geared for people who were too young to remember him during his life. If you are old enough to remember Jimi Hendrix then this movie will have little appeal. A lot of ground is covered, but so very little time is spent on events that they become blurred and almost irrelevant. During the recording of "Electric Ladyland", one of the greatest rock albums ever by the way, the bassist becomes frustrated as accuses Jimi of treating him and the drummer as if they were groupies. Perhaps there was truth in that, but there was nothing in the film leading up to that scene that would have given evidence that this was so. This is but one example of the rush to cover too much ground.

All in all, this film is a cheap exploitation of Hendrix that might be useful as a history lesson for people under 40. But is is a fake history, so buyer beware.

Had I one dollar for every burst of machine gun fire then I'd be a rich man. The actors in this film are talented people with good resumes, but that it the only positive comment I can make about this film. Cheap, trashy exploitation that wants us to feel sympathetic for John Dillinger.

In these types of movies I am amazed at the gall of the director. In scene after scene Dillinger is involved in machine gun battles with police, and yet he is never touched. While the film might be somewhat accurate from a historical perspective, I am fairly certain that the gun battles did not take place as brazenly as the film suggests. There is no way that a person could stand in the open without cover, and have numerous police officers firing at them from a close distance and not get hit. While it might make for good action scenes, it defies reality. And the was also no attempt to explain the love interest between Dillinger and his "moll". One minute they meet, and the next she is his woman. Perhaps they could have shortened the gun battles and fleshed out the romantic entanglements a little.

If you're a fan of the New York Dolls, and even if you aren't, this film is a gem. For younger people it is a time capsule of how things used to be, when bands played "live" without audio enhancers and without lip syncing and without a bevy of backup dancers. Very often the "liveZ" version of a song did not sound like the recorded version. For older people, the film is like taking a trip down memory lane to a more innocent time. The documentary does a good job of catching the NY Dolls at their best and worst. It captures their energy and their driving sound that made them a memorable band, and it also hints at the excesses that led to their breakup.

My favorite part was when the band left to go to Los Angeles, from Johnny Thunders' wife reminding him to "take his vitamins" to the outrageous get-up that Sylvain wore on the plane. The Dolls were not poseurs, they dressed in real life the same way that they did on stage.

This is a must-see documentary for anyone who cares about the history of rock music.

I recently saw this film on television. I usually like Gregory Peck, but he seemed a bit too wooden in this role. Two things stick out in my mind that are so unreal that the film has been diminished.

The first thing is the radio announcer. It would have been fairly simple to shhot out the loudspeakers. The announcer seemed so up-to-date on events, it was as if he was on the front line.

The second thing is the abrupt ending. AT one moment we're being told that "a million Chinese" are surging up the hill, and the next moment Gregory Peck receives a message that "help is on the way, they should be there any minute". And in the span of about 15 seconds, the "million Chinese" are routed.

I saw this film a few weeks ago on television. Not expecting much, I was completely taken with it. It is a charming, poignant and funny story that takes place in working-class Glascow. What could have been a story about despair, unemployment, bleak prospects and rage against the system turned into a delightful caper film. The director obviously has a lot of love for the city of Glascow, and it shows itself at every turn I won't give the plot away except to say that this film is proof that you don't need a big budget, special effects, gratuitous violence and drawn-out car chases to make a wonderful film.

Two little things stand out in my mind. The 2 youths who break into an impromptu singing of the Sex Pistols' "Holiday in the Sun" when asked they they were planning to go after the caper, and the doctor, who when predicting life in 2069 remarks that "Partick Thistle" will have won the European Cup". You have to know a little about football (soccer) to appreciate the humor in that. Speaking of football, we never did find out if the characters in the film were from the "green half" or "blue half" of Glascow. Pity that, but it does not detract from a wonderful way to spend an afternoon. I highly recommend this film.

I have only begun to watch this show recently, as a local PBS station has been showing reruns of it. The good news is that because it is on PBS, I get to see it without commercial breaks.

The show is original and quirky and, as a result, interesting. This is not your standard run-of-the-mill show with cardboard characters and stereotypical plots. That in itself is a great achievement. While I am not enthralled with the show, as some people are, I respect it for its originality and I do enjoy watching it.

It is both a serious comedy and a light-hearted drama. The show made more of an attempt at striving for a higher common ground than most shows, and that is about as high a compliment as I can give any show. I would recommend Northern Exposure to anyone who is tired of the standard, typical show that permeates mainstream TV.

Kiss Me Quick is a masterpiece of its genre (nudie cutie), accepting of course that the genre has fairly low standards. The film has humor, which separates it from some of its competitors. It also has attractive girls, some especially so in the mid-sixties sort of way. Somehow the women in those days managed to look attractive and voluptuous without looking slutty. Harry Novak, the Producer, said that most of the women were recruited from the Classic Cat, which was a strip club in Los Angeles. In those days strippers didn't have tattoos or body piercings or look like they could kick your butt.

This film was made during the ear of monster popularity. The Addams Family and the Munsters were big hits on television, so of course we get monsters as the male characters in the film. Short on plot, this film is basically wall-to-wall women dancing without wearing too many clothes. But more importantly, it wasn't intended to be anything more than that; its reach did not exceed its grasp.

The final scene, with the woman coming down a conveyor belt and having labels slapped on them was a stroke of pure artistic genius.

There is a website out there somewhere that specializes in the 4 word film review. This movie easily fits into that category (see summary above). It is a typical stereotypical film that religiously follows every imaginable cliché.

The characters are supposed to be high school students, but the lead actor Tony (good chicano) was 33 at the time of the film, and most of the other actors appear to be in their early to mid twenties.

Making a long story short, the good chicano eventually gets the better of the bad gringos, and walks away with a good gringo girl (Patty McCormick), which really burns the bad gringos. The plot is predictable and irrelevant, but if you must watch the film you can get a good history lesson on 60's fashion and cars.

I just saw this film on television yesterday and one thing puzzles me. There was a wild car chase scene where George Clooney is being pursued by two cars. They were driving at breakneck speed, crashing their way through a main city square, firing bullets, knocking down structures and terrorizing innocent people who just happened to be in the area (it was a crowded plaza). The scene took about 5 minutes in film time, as George Clooney kept backing into his pursuers after their vehicles stalled.

And yet, despite all this mayhem in the middle of a busy and centrally located city plaza, mayhem that, I stress again, goes on for several minutes, NO POLICE EVER SHOW UP!!! I realize that if they did then the movie might have ended prematurely and would have been a lot less dramatic, but these are the types of things that make me cynical about the filmmaker.

Here is what bothers me about the movie: Politics is a sleazy business and only the sleaziest rise to the top. Someone who has advanced through the system to where they are considered a viable candidate for Vice President has to be consumed with power, ambition and all the other lovable qualities we've come to expect from politicians. To think that someone who has risen to that level would be so principled as to let their Vice Preidential ambition get crushed on a lie, without fighting back, is to far-fetched to believe. Anyone that principled would have been defeated after a brief time in office and never heard from again.

The creators of this film have created a make-believe scenario that has no foundation in reality. And since this "political" film is supposed to resemble reality, is is worse than awful. Sometimes awful films are so bad that they are good, but this one is so awful that it made me angry that I wasted two hours watching it.

As other reviewers have noted, this movie had the potential to be good, but the direction is so mind-numbing bad that it is not worth watching. In fact, the viewer ought to feel insulted at the way the director insults their intelligence. Every cliché is overplayed, as if it is assumed that the viewer is too stupid to get the joke unless they are hit over the head with it.

I think the filmmakers couldn't decide whether they wanted to do a soft-core porn flick or an adult-themed comedy, so they tried to do a little of both, and ended up doing neither. In fact, it represents the worst of both genres: a soft-core porn that is not erotic and comedy that is not funny.

Monica Gayle is beautiful to look at (as always), but other than that, the film has no redeeming value.

I only began watching this show a few months ago, in syndication, and after five episodes I stopped. In three of the five episodes a young child was part of the plot, and in all three instances the drama ended with David Caruso saving (and hugging) the child. By the third one I knew exactly how it was going to end.

Technology can be a good thing, but in this show it is just a gimmick, as car chases were in the Rockford Files. It trivializes police work and is just an excuse to get from point A to point B without having to script it.

And what's up with the gore? They show us much more than we need to see in order to appreciate what's going on. Ultimately, the graphic gore is just another gimmick.

If you want to see what a good crime drama/police show can be then watch "Da Vinci's Inquest" CSI Miami is just another tired cop show that relies on gimmicks because it has nothing original to offer.

I must confess that I only began watching this show in syndication, less than a year ago, and I am hooked. My local station shows one episode per week. I still don't know if the client who shot himself in his lawyer's office really committed suicide or whether Brian the vice cop will get his due, and I am on tender hooks waiting to find out.

The casting is excellent and the acting is phenomenal. Emily Perkins,who plays the street walker/informant makes a meal out of a minor role, but all of the actors play their roles well. And the lead role, Da Vinci, is played to understated perfection. Not a superhero/superstar, as most TV leads tend to be.

But it is the script writing that stands out the most. Some threads begin and end in one episode while others stretch over over longer periods, and yet nothing seems contrived or forced. The fact that the series is Canadien might have something to do with this - are you paying attention Hollywood? If you want glitz and glamor and cheap laughs and stereotypical character development then Da Vinci's Inquest is not for you. But if you like intelligent drama that doesn't insult its audience then I cannot recommend a TV series more than this one.

I don't know what it is, but Stacey Walker, the lead character in this film, has a real screen presence. She is riveting, exuding a real sexiness that transcends physical beauty. Otherwise, there would not be much to recommend this film, as it drags at times and the plot is very predictable once the general premise becomes known. I thought Stacey was at her most erotic in the final scene of the film, when she was hanging out on a street corner with a cigarette dangling from her lips, waiting for a John.

According to the Director, David Friedman, he discovered Ms. Walker on the beach in Santa Monica when she badgered him to buy het a hot dog. While I find that hard to believe, it could possibly be true. Alas that Stacey Walker made only two feature films before disappearing into obscurity. I think she could have been a real star in the sexploitation movie industry had she wanted to. But I suppose it is always better to leave them wanting more. I do however recommend this fiim for Stacey Walker alone.

I just saw this movie the other day and, unlike some reviewers, I had a problem with the fight scenes. I thought they were too unrealistic.

First off, let me say that I loved the celebrity cameos at the arena; they certainly added a touch of realism, and having Lucy Liu's character show up with Rod Stewart was a stroke of genius. But I thought it too unrealistic the way the two boxers slugged each other without lingering effect. How many times did one of them get knocked down and struggle to barely get up at the count of nine? Too many to count. And in real boxing matches, whenever someone struggles to get up at the count of nine, it is all they can do just to hang on until the end of the round. Yet in this movie, each time someone gets up at the count of nine they immediately launch a counteroffensive that has their opponents on the ropes. They just does not happen in real life.

Am I nitpicking? Perhaps, but it ruined the film for me.

The sexploitation movie era of the late sixties and early seventies began with the allowance of gratuitous nudity in mainstream films and ended with the legalization of hardcore porn. It's peak years were between 1968 and 1972. One of the most loved and talented actresses of the era was Monica Gayle, who had a small but fanatic cult of followers. She was actually able to act, unlike many who filled the lead roles of these flicks, and her subsequent credits proved it. And her seemingly deliberate fade into obscurity right when her career was taking off only heightens her mystique.

Gary Graver, the director, was also a talent; probably too talented for the sexploitation genre, and his skill, combined with Monica Gayle's screen presence, makes Sandra, the Making of a Woman, a pleasantly enjoyable experience. The film never drags and you won't have your finger pressed on the fast-forward button.