robbiereilly

It's on NHK here in Tokyo now. I had no idea where it came from, who wrote it, nor what it was about.

In other words, totally objective review following:

I love it.

What's more, it's beautiful. Lovely cinematography that harks back to the days of Joan Hickson Miss Marple and 90s Hercule Poirot (no, not that gawdawful 2000s after season 6, which are horrid). Mainly because the digital camerawork resembles good old Arriflex 16mm (used on those older shows).

The acting, locations, vehicles-cars, the lovely, lovely autos-and the Royal Enfield motorbike Bobby rides are all supreme.

Story-wise, I find it hard to follow. But I don't mind that. When I can keep up with a mystery it's not doing its job.

I'm a huge nut on Brit mysteries (before they became 'Britbox' fodder). Been one since Tom Baker was Doctor Who, so I have high standards. Very few-very few indeed-made after 2000 do anything for me. Most use blood and gore to fill in where cleverness and wit were employed in the past.

Here, it's another story. Hugh Laurie dazzles in every facet of his direction.

I've only seen one and half episodes (I missed the first half of the first episode. Sue me).

But I can't wait for the next episode (possibly the final?) to air here in Tokyo, when it all comes together.

Cheers.

Well, an era comes to a close. I just watched this final episode about an hour ago. I knew it was coming. I had heard that Colin Dexter finished the stories with Morse dying, on duty and doing what he loved. I also saw the documentary produced where all the actors and main crew talk about the experience of being a part of 'Inspector Morse'. For many, this is all old news. But not for me, since I had only seen a handful of episodes back when they originally aired in the late 80's and early 90's.

Mystery Channel here in Tokyo had been airing this series for the last few months, every weeknight at 6pm. This was a real treat, to come home, have dinner and watch an episode of 'Morse', as it is simply known here.

I was happy they didn't 'retire' him, in the earlier episode, as it seemed that they might. But in a way, Morse was gone for me even before this last episode started.

The reason is this. These newer episodes, ones shot in widescreen, didn't really do it for me. Everything seemed different in them. The camera work, the editing, the sound, the way the characters behaved, sometimes out of character, all were very different in style and execution and I can only describe as 'softened' or 'watered down', compared with the more abrupt and much more likable earlier episodes.

The camera work in this episode especially was so smooth and lovingly slow that it was almost putting me to sleep. The seemingly endless and far-too-slow zoom-ins and zoom-outs, as well as the smooth as butter panning shots didn't fit the series as I had come to know it. This smoothness was out of place more than a glass of orange juice in Morse's hand in a pub would be (of course fans know he did just that in Australia!). I found myself missing the rougher, more cinematic style of the series, as much as Morse missed having a pint with Lewis. In this later series, everything was so polished and smooth and proper, it was like I was watching 'Downton Abbey' instead of 'Inspector Morse'.

This was the same way I felt with the later episodes of 'Hercule Poirot' after Hastings and Miss Lemon and Inspector Japp were gone and they stopped using the great theme music by Chris Gunning. From that point on, the series changed dramatically. I didn't like it. There was also more blood and gore, which I also didn't care for. From the mid 90s onward (coincidentally Morse started to change around this same time) I don't consider as true 'Poirot' episodes. They are far too polished, affected and not nearly as fun without any of the chemistry, magic or clever filming style that previous years contained. It was as if someone else took over the shop and decided to change everything but keep a few things for old time's sake. These episodes fill me with a odd coldness, like meeting an old friend who's changed too much to stomach.

And cold is how the last episode left me. It was very sad, and I teared up quite a bit. But still, it was a cold feeling I had watching it and in a way, I wish I hadn't seen that last episode at all.

So for me, as I stated in the subject line, the series had already come to a close earlier on - at least by a few years - than that fateful day on the grass at Oxford and his last, almost meaningless (for me) conversation with "Robbie", over the phone.

As I understand it, actor John Thaw was also eager to finish up the character of Morse, as he wanted to play other roles, in other productions. Author Colin Dexter had decided that he had murdered off enough residents, students and staff at Oxford for several lifetimes (perhaps this is why they began to re-open old cases of victims long dead - no fresh corpses, nor ever-diminishing faculty).

But sadly, John Thaw was himself to pass away only two years later. For me, that's doubly tragic, since he didn't get to pursue those other roles that he wished to, and also that Inspector Morse's demise was 'rushed' to make way for other, better things, which never came.

We've seen this more times than I can count. A highly successful and popular series is ended because the cast or crew wish to move on to bigger things. But it is a rare instance when those bigger things ever eclipse the original work in popularity or quality. It's in the nature of acting and actors to love and seek to perform various roles, never to be typecast, associated with any one character. But when a lovable and extremely popular character such as Morse comes along, an actor would be well advised to revel in it as long as the audience will have him.

Inspector Morse had a very good run, and many fine years of productions. However, I wish it had gone even longer, perhaps right up until John Thaw's death, having the actor, like the Chief Inspector he portrayed, leave this earth doing what he was very best at.

(10/10 for the series, 7/10 for the last few episodes)

I don't care what anybody says, I think these were great fun! As I said in the title, it was A-Team meets Miami Vice meets Bay Watch.

Guns, Girls, Gangsters, Gadgets and Good old fashioned fun with a capital Thunder which starts with T and rhymes with P and stands for Pool, swimming pool, that is. This is an action adventure fantasy show full of explosions, machine guns, girls in bikinis, guys in, well, swimming trunks and heaps of ham acting. And nobody dies, either! That's right, not one person is killed-to-death on this show. Nobody. Nor is there even any blood in sight, well real sickening blood, that is. Sure, the cuts and scrapes that any action hero gets in a normal day on the job are there to be seen, but nothing like you'd witness even on the tamest action flick (or computer game) nowadays. So, for me, Thunder in Paradise is sort of like Scooby Doo, only LIVE action.

It's all good formula stuff: The good guys, ex-Navy SEALs, invariably get into some kind of mess and try to find a way out of it which undoubtedly complicates things into an even bigger mess. Along the way they save the girl (or girls!), save the beach, save the hotel, save the kind old man or anyone else who needs help, and put the bad guys away - for good! Not to mention, they always get the girl in the end. Well, almost always. Oh, did I mention the huge amount of gorgeous bodies in the background of almost every beach scene? I think this show might hold the record. Carol Alt, who co-starred in it, is no slouch either. But the reigning star of the show is 'Thunder' the scarab experimental one-off water weapon that 'Spence' has built for the Navy. Hi partner 'Bru', and buddy for life pilots the hi-tech craft through calm harbors, rough seas or bullet-riddled jungle lagoons. This thing goes anywhere. And so does the plot for that matter! But you can be sure, by the story's end our heroes will be banged-up, bruised and aching, but also smiling ear to ear back at their favorite beach watering hole, the Scuttlebutt Bar N' Grill, run by Carol Alt's character 'Kelly LaRue'.

The jokes and fun, action and fights between our heroes played by Hulk Hogan and Chris Lemon (yes, Jack's son), and whatever bad guys come along, is nothing short of fantastic mediocrity! And that's why I love it. It doesn't try to be perfect or even high brow. This is simply a fun, B-movie ride of adventure and melodrama in the same way the old serials used to be - you know, those shorts that inspired "Raiders of the Lost Ark"?

Anyway, I loved it. When TV was like this, (A-Team, etc.) when there were limits as to how serious a show could get or how much gore could be shown (or inferred) for general audiences to ingest we had a lot less problems occurring in society, didn't we? A connection? Cause and effect? Does media influence society? You decide. As for me, I've already decided. Besides, I don't want to turn this review into a Marshall McCluhan seminar. All I know is, innocent, good-natured fun like this wasn't influencing young minds and inspiring disturbing behavior in real life to go out and do nasty things, or worse yet, be immune and sensitized when someone else does. Can you say the same about today's TV shows, usually glorifying a sadistic serial killer, or having us see up-close the gruesome details of a crime scene investigation which spares no blood, guts, organs and sickening details of torture for our viewing pleasure? All that stuff is child's play for most children nowadays who can recite from memory how to cut up a body for disposal, use bleach to remove DNA from a crime scene or how a month-old corpse looks when dredged up from a river. Well, that may be your cup of tea, but I believe in garbage in / garbage out. And thankfully, we get to choose our own garbage.

You can have your torture and stylish autopsies. I'll take fun in the sun and silly paradise any day.

Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" is simply a masterpiece. A perfect film.

There's no need to take it apart scene by scene or examine its plot, its themes or do a character study of George Bailey. No need to attach more meaning than was intended, to imagine symbols where they don't exist, or to ignore the ones that do. No need at all. For if you are one of the many, the growing many who cannot watch this film without tasting tears, tears of joy, tears of sadness, then you know exactly what I am talking about - that further discussion would only serve to diminish the film's beauty.

There are few films that are in this category, that hit notes as true as this. "Casablanca" is one, "It's a Wonderful Life" is another, where everything comes together, where magic is not only seen in one scene, but in every scene, every line, every look and moment in the film. Pure magic. That's what this is, folks. Pure magic. It's the stuff dreams are made of.

And the less talk about it the better. We talk too much nowadays, anyway.

Just watch it and let it move you to joy, to tears, and tears of joy.

I recently saw this on the big screen here in Tokyo (July 2012).

I hadn't seen it for years, going back decades probably. I saw it originally when it came out, as I was only a couple of years junior to those portrayed on the screen. Like others have mentioned, the acting was superb and true to life. Not one second on screen do you feel anyone is acting. Dennis Christopher as lead character David Stoller is really a joy to behold. His enthusiasm is never forced or fake. He pulls it off beautifully.

And Dennis Quaid's Mike character is probably all too common in this world of high school stars peaking with graduation. His story is quietly repeated among so many who saw their best years in high school only to watch others get the longer lasting glory. The speeches he gives are poignant, deep and yet perfectly fitting of his character. He does a wonderful job of showing the frustration of change.

Daniel Stern's Cyril is perfect as the more comical of the bunch - simply perfect casting. Some of his lines are just priceless.

And Jack Earl Haley and 'Moocher' looks like so many of us looked like back then, me included (though I wasn't short). Long straggly hair, t shirt, jeans and string-bean skinny.

Paul Dooley and Barbara Barrie were wonderful. As were the brief shots of others at the Little 500. I can only imagine they were locals hired as extras.

Hart Bochner (Lloyd's son) did a fine job as the snob jock. Gotta admit, they didn't come better looking than that back then. I sometimes wonder if Paul McTiernan didn't intentionally subject Hart to that somewhat comical but deadly ending in "Die Hard" out of payback for being such a jerk in "Breaking Away".

Katherina played by Robyn Douglass was wonderful. She had that perfect look of girls you would just die for back then. She even resembled a girl me and my pals were all in love with back in Chatham Township high school. I loved her scenes and her moment when she finds out the truth. Really jolts you out of your seat. Choked me up.

Watching this film really made me aware of how we've changed, not just in our clothing or hair styles, but in our entire lives. Everything is brand-name now, everyone is so conscious of who made the object they desire and how much it cost. The more expensive the better. Everything is new and shiny. Every single element in a movie is examined from eyeglasses to shoes to pens. Everything is measured for its affluence and brand quality.

Back then, we had Schwinns, Huffys, Raleighs, even Sears and whatever else we could afford. We wore clothes just like those kids in the movie wore, T shirts, old jeans cut-offs in summer, and ripped up sneakers. We had fishing holes or swimming holes and spent enormous amounts of time riding bikes, or just laying in the grass or on rocks in the sun, or up in some tree house, just thinking or talking or planning out the universe... and also about girls, which none of us had actually had any meaningful contact with yet. A magical time in a boy's life.

Reminds me of the time we discovered an old playboy in the woods under a fallen tree. It was a huge deal with us at the time. We'd hide it back under the tree trunk wrapped in some plastic and go back to it when we were back there. Nowadays, the most descriptive and graphic porn that even Ripley wouldn't believe is simply a click away 24/7. It's a different world, indeed.

(Ironically, as a side note, the Playboy issue, we found out years later was the one that highlighted the ill-fated Dorothy Stratton.)

Nowadays, can you imagine anyone, especially a 19 year old kid sitting still out in nature or anywhere else for that matter for even ten seconds without whipping out a smart-phone or some other gadget? Or being seen not having just the right clothes, just the right Nikes or Adidas sneakers? We had converse back then, and they were the cheap sneakers.

It's just sad that such a time in life is gone forever, not just in the styles which were, yes, sloppy, an unkempt, but in the way kids lived. It's an entirely different world today and I wouldn't trade my childhood in the 70s and early 80s with any kid today for all the money in the world.

I sat through the film twice, loving it so much and knowing I'd probably never get a chance to see it on the big screen again. Watching it with tears in my eyes, I really felt such an urge that if I could have, I would've climbed into that screen in a second to go back to that time once again that is never more. Just like Willoughby must've been to Rod Serling.

Did I miss something here?

This was an excellent production. As some stated, a 'must see' for students of history and those interested in the Vietnam War.

It's a recollection, a compilation using home movie footage, archival footage, material released through FOIA, and plenty of other sources never before assembled together to present a very personal view of what it was like to fight in Vietnam and to be at home waiting for the loved one to return.

A personal view.

Judging by the criticisms of others here, complaining that the series is too patriotic or pro- American, I have to say, did you watch the same documentary as I did? Simply because the production focuses on American soldiers in this conflict does not make it jingoistic. It simply means it's from a perspective. Good grief, lighten up.

What I saw were personal stories, stories of men asked - no, make that ordered, drafted into action for their country (in this case, the United States). Action most neither asked for nor wanted. Yet, action they fulfilled nevertheless.

What I did NOT see was the flag waving jingoism many here are complaining about. If anything, this documentary illustrates the futility of that conflict and how the American leadership lacked the moral justification to order young men into battle. Yet, the men who were ordered to do so, did the best they could under the worst of circumstances, only to come home to the misguided anger, hate and violence of American protesters, which some of the comments here seem to side with.

This is a well produced, illustrative and interesting production on the personal side of Americans in Vietnam, right up there with the outstanding works of PBS's "Vietnam A Television History" and Stanley Karnow's companion book.

Like I said above, ignore the critics. See it.

I'm not going to write a five page essay here that took three hours to write about how I want my two hours back after watching this film.

I knew what it was going in. So should you. Spare yourself the tomes of negative or even positive reviews and watch it for yourself if you so desire.

It's a fun movie. If you want more logic in the plot, more realism, see something that has more of those things. But don't waste your time reading others' criticisms of this or any other movie. Movies, like music, and most everything else in life, are subjective to one's taste.

Never listen to anyone else's take on these things - including mine.

Personally, I happen to enjoy small, talky movies. This was exactly opposite of that... and I loved it.

Hope you do, too. Have fun!

Contrary to what some find objectionable or even biased, the Soviet Union was, at that time, literally on the brink of what is depicted to have happened in this faux documentary.

I found this production unbiased and well-researched, showing that many within both the Soviet politburo and military were against any military action, as were their counterparts in the west, but that an alternative was impractical for their survival.

The use of news footage reminds us that the events shown did happen. Of course, they are not linked to the events depicted - sometimes occurring in different regions or even countries. But their use does show us that the human condition is very fragile and governments and populations can explode into erratic, violent directions sometimes with little more than fine print writing on the proverbial wall.

As someone who not only lived through that era, but served in a capacity to have access to many events that went unreported, I can say without fear of contradiction that this film does not even scratch the surface as to the amount and severity of close calls and opportunities for war which have occurred.

Many times by luck and others by the action of even a single individual prevented what might have been a third world war.

All in all, I found this to be a wholly believable scenario of a Cold War 'what if...'.

OK, well, not really, but I DID enjoy it. Yes, I did. And I even watched it online, streaming, so the copy was even worse than the poor quality VHS hinted at in other comments. But, heck, I loved it. Sure it's clunky, silly, and ridiculous, but it's fun! So, count me in!

Cheryl Ladd, Stephen Boyd, Chuck Woolery, Rosie Grier and that hugely awkward wood barrel van! They all put a smile on my face. And maybe yours too! Don't take life so seriously. When it comes to movies, music and art, relax, take it in, and don't take anybody's word for anything. Experience them all yourself.

Would you trust another person, a stranger, to tell you what music to listen to? I didn't think so. So, you shouldn't do it with any film and not with this film, either. So, like I said, check it out. You may find yourself smiling before you know it.

Great film by Zoltan Korda.

Ignore the plot summary on this. It's not only inaccurate, it's completely and intentionally misguided.

Sahara is far from being a so called 'propaganda' piece for the government as the plot summary written by a college student from a famous activist university.

For anyone to suggest that Zoltan was a silent mouthpiece for the government, any government, let alone a western one, shows the utter lack of knowledge of him, his far left political leanings, of Humphrey Bogart, who was a left leaning actor himself, and a lack of any knowledge of this film as well, undoubtedly, of many other things.

Disregard and dispatch with the plot summary misguidedness as a classic case of a college student indoctrinated by professors.

With that aside, enjoy this film for it is a fine adventure war flick. Takes place in Libya at the outset of WWII, when the Americans sent tank regiments into Africa to aid in stopping the German Afrika Corps units in their quest to usurp the British, French colonial presence in throughout the continent.

Bogart does a fine job in this one. He's backed by a well picked and entertaining cast headed up by Bruce Bennett who he would later star with in the John Huston classic Treasure of Sierra Madre.

This film highlights in a well shot, well scored story what is most important to men in battle. The personal stories that are shared, including the humorous wive's tales by the Sudanese and the Italian and the rancorous wit of the typesetter Londoner make for fine dialog scenes bringing out the differences and the similarities of men from across many lands.

The action is well paced and nothing to be ashamed of, especially considering this film was made during the war! It is for that reason that perhaps the misguided college student assumed it was propaganda. Then we must assume that all films not critical of fighting a war are propaganda and all films critical of fighting a war are benevolent and truthful? Hardly a reality any sane person would subscribe to.

As the late great, and no fan of government George Carlin said after 9/11, "Pacism is a great idea, but we're not there yet. It doesn't work unless both sides are playing by those rules. They're not. It's time to kick some a$$." And as George Orwell stated in his criticism of fellow socialists, 'Pacism in time of war is treason."

Those old enough to remember the threat during WWII, to remember what happened and what was likely to happen if America did nothing, if Great Britain caved in, know full well that most youth today wouldn't exist as they do, and therefore wouldn't have the ability to speak the nonsense they so often, and relentlessly utter.

All I can say is, thank goodness for men like those portrayed in this film (based on a Russian story). Men who would die for a funny thing called liberty. Men who would die and no one would know their names. No one then, and especially, judging by commentary seen here, and other places like Tonight Show's Jay Walking, yes, especially now.

But there is hope. For with every misguided, indoctrinated utterance of ignorance, with every naive regurgitation of a misplaced socialist professor's ideals transplanted into a young empty skull decrying the efforts of good men in the past, I take solace in knowing that it serves as a reminder that good did triumph over evil, and that liberty and freedom won the day. That we have the freedom to be stupid. To be ignorant. To imagine we know better than those that came before. That is our reward for our efforts. Was it worth it? Who can say? But the men portrayed in this film would answer with a resounding 'yes'. Too bad no one is taught about them in schools anymore to even bother to care.

This is Not A Test is no masterpiece. But, it's not a bad movie either. In fact, I will argue that it's rather well made. 

It is essentially an elongated Twilight Zone episode combining elements of Martian in a Diner with The Shelter and Maple Street. 

Many here ridicule this film saying it's horribly done, bad acting, etc. This is wholly incorrect. Most self appointed experts on films commenting here and other places often complain in like deed and manner, using the same phrases and complaints. 

This film was shot, composed, scored, and sound recorded professionally, albeit with a lower budget than A pictures. 

This film was shot with skill. The sound is without any noticeable errors, drops, or sound asymmetry, with dialog, Foley, score, incidental music doing what they are supposed to do. Comparing this film to Ed Wood's is way off base. Wood's films are very poorly made (and lovable). 

Too many times, people trash old films making clichéd generalizations that it's 'crap' or 'shoestring budget' or has 'wooden acting' etc. I'd wager those who make such comments have never made a movie, or probably anything else creative in their lives, certainly not on a scale of a motion picture, even a lower budget one. Sorry, Youtube videos don't count. Such people, and we have a lot of them these days, find it easy to make such blanket statements. 

Ignore them. For it is the easiest thing in the world to ridicule something as if you are an authority, and it's the most foolish thing in the world to believe it. 

I'm not saying this film is great. It's classic B movie drive-in fare. But, that doesn't mean that skill wasn't involved, or that professionals didn't do their best with what they had to work with to put an entertaining picture on the big screen. I urge you, if you care, to just take any shot in the film, pick any one, or any scene, and look where the camera was placed, what angle, how is it composed? What can you see in the shot, does the camera move, and if so, is it smoothly done? How are the shots mixed? Does the variety of divergent shots create a feeling you can describe? How is the mixture of shots set up to build tension? Are close ups used? Long shots? Mid shots? Two shots? Overhead shots, low angles? Thru windows, around objects? Dolly shots? Crane shots? Moving vehicle shots? What shots were done in a studio? How many did it take to complete a scene?

How are the actors' eye lines? Do they match up, or are they looking in the wrong direction, wrong angle, wrong side of the frame? Do they move off their marks?

Did they flub their lines? How is the wardrobe? Do they look "wardrobed"? How about their hair? Does their hair change suddenly shot to shot, as is often the case when continuity is not managed well? 

How is the cutting? The editing? Does it make sense? Is it convincing that things are happening in real time, even though a 1 minute scene may have taken all night or one week or month of nights to shoot? Did the editor develop a rhythm within each scene, and an overall one for the entire story? Were sound bridges used, where actors' lines, or sound effects cross over visual cuts? Were many lines delivered off camera, so we can see reactions to the lines from the other players? 

How are the sound effects used? Are they convincing? Or out of sync? The crickets? Do they suddenly stop for no reason shot by shot, or are the sound effects consistently maintained? Is the police car radio convincing? How about the static from the other cars' radios? Door slams? Were they foleyed well? Do you see any mic booms? Light set ups? Can you even tell how they lit each scene, so we could see what we should see and not see what we shouldn't? There is no large lampposts, yet we believe we should see them. How is this violation of reality accomplished so the viewer doesn't have it ruin the illusion. 

The above is only the tip of the iceberg of what a filmmaker goes through for each second, each frame of film that is shot. Remember this is film, not video.

If you are the type of person who makes fun of B/W movies, old TV shows, music made before you were a teenager, then don't bother watching it. You've got greater issues to deal with and you need all the time you have left on earth to deal with them. 

If on the other hand you are one who has an open mind, and enjoys fun movies, then take a peak. You may like it. It may stay with you. You may surprise yourself. 

One of the worst things to ever happen to cinema, to old movies in particular (and all movies become old movies eventually) was Mystery Science Theater. Even though it was very funny, and a good concept - we often did the exact same thing in college way before MST did it, as did probably many of you out there - it cued many young people into thinking ALL old movies, ALL B movies should be made fun of. This was a dire mistake and has transformed into a tragedy. It has brought upon us an avalanche of cynical so-called experts who strive to elicit the end-all cut or put-down of such fare as This is Not A Test. 

The challenge in life is not to find things to ridicule, but rather to find the beauty in things others can't see, and maybe, with a little luck, show it to them. 

Good luck.

There's something about these kinds of gems that can't be denied. And that is, that they stink. But I love them, nonetheless. In fact, if it didn't stink to high heaven in its bad execution from start to finish, I'd probably not like it. Even worse, if it was a big budget film with excellent directing, acting, and everything else that we've come to expect in good films, it would last a week in a theater, be on DVD after that and be in the cheap bin two weeks after that like Event Horizon and other such modern well-executed but ho-hum awful films.

Nope. This kind of bad lasts forever.

There, does that make sense?

As a young teen when this came out, I completely related to it. As an adult in the present sex- obsessed American culture, it doesn't have enough nudity to be called tame.

If you are looking for American Pie-type lewdness, vulgarity or fart and feces jokes, Meatballs will disappoint with impunity and a guarantee.

If you like Bill Murray, and you like good clean fun, you will probably like and enjoy this film very much. Similarly with Stripes, Ghostbusters, Caddy Shack, etc.

Enough said, just go watch it, and stop intellectualizing it. It's Meatballs, for crying out loud! Why read a review? Just enjoy it and have fun. And ignore the trash talk by others. Films, like so many other things in life, are subjective. To each his own.

Always beware the 'expert' who diminishes others' taste.

First of all, let me say that I never follow other people's advice or reviews on films (or books, or art of any kind). I disregard the views of another when it comes to art, politics or religion. I recommend you do the same. The quality of your life will greatly improve. Why do I say this? Because the heart, that funny little muscle in your chest, is wonderfully more equipped and experienced than any blowhard, expert, or time-wasting pseudo critic.

Speaking of time wasting... I'm amazed at the current trend for people to use phrases like "I want my two hours back", or "two hours of my life gone forever" after watching a bad, very bad flick.

Give me a break. If you are so concerned about that lost time, then don't compound it with a comment that took you probably at least another hour (or two, or three?) to write and upload. What makes it even more ridiculous is that those are usually the longest reviews, and ones which include character names 'in toto'. This isn't a casual viewer we're talking about here. This was someone who took time, a lot of time, to make sure their facts about the film were correct, almost as if they felt that their critique, if flawed in any way, would be discounted and people would instead stampede to said film like mindless cattle down a freshly mown hill (by the way, that metaphor took me about 3.5 minutes, if anyone is counting).

The two hours you may have spent watching a bad movie are nothing, absolutely nothing compared with the hours, days, weeks, months of your life that you've spent picking your nose, scratching yourself, taking that clear plastic collar shape retainer out of dress shirts, or reading comments like the one you are reading now.

Which leads me to my next point. Many of the same reviewers, comMentors, and pseudo critics, are the ones who suggest other avenues to pursue in lieu of watching a film like the one they are advising you not to watch (which they just watched). Examples that come to mind are: "go read a book instead", "go out for a walk", etc. All good ideas in their own right, and ones which need no advertisement of incentive to to engage in.

So, why do they advise us about such commonly known activities? Is it that they are afraid that you might actually like the film? Perhaps. But I think they are certain that their review should reside under glass somewhere as the definitive example of dissuasion (not sure if that's a word, but don't want to waste your time or mine looking it up. Besides, I'm on a roll!). Perhaps they feel that no other reviews should come after theirs. That theirs should be the last word on the subject. In other words, as far as reviewing that particular film, they've "nailed it" (another phrase, overused and awful).

"Nailing it", implies the quintessential, the ultimate, the perfect. Newsflash: In art, there is no such thing. If it were about pounding nails into wood, then they'd be correct. But Norm Abrahms aside, avoid taking advice from anyone who uses that phrase, or the ones mentioned above, or for that matter, mine.

Now, go out and enjoy a bad movie. You'll be glad you did.

I have not read the book. I have seen all three movies. I did enjoy PoA.

With that said, I really did not like it as a part of the series. As a film, in its own right, it's not bad. Way too stylish for my tastes, however. Too many wide angle, fish-eye lens shots, way, way too much color alteration. Result: a very MTV look.

I'm not impressed by these devices. They only detract from the story. As a filmmaker myself, I'm very familiar with the techniques used in the film to achieve that look. I don't dislike them. I just don't care for them in this series.

Overall, the film was enjoyable as a stand alone film, not as a part of the Harry Potter FILMS. Notice I didn't say "BOOKS". Films and Books are two different media. Incomparable. But adaptations of books to film, DO have to maintain consistency in the message and theme.

I did notice some annoying things, the obvious deletion, or alteration of certain characters, items, places, locations.

Now, not having read the book, perhaps most of my criticisms/observations are unfounded, since, many of these points might be explained in the book.

Here's a somewhat humorous (i hope) list of things I found distracting. Here we go. Enjoy...

Why does the headmaster's nails look so dirty, long, and sinister now?

Where's little sister Weasley who had a crush on Harry?

Where's Q coach Wood?

Where's Colin?

Why the increase in "minority" students when they weren't there in such numbers before? They should have been there from the beginning. To change it now, seems like the director is making a racial statement. Too obviously well placed in each shot. It felt like a political campaign photo-op. Distracting.

Why did Hagg's house move location down the hill away from the castle? To seem much more sinister?

Why did Hogwarts move location? Again, to seem much more sinister?

Where did the Stonehenge druid stones come from, making Hogwarts and Hagg's house seem much more sinister?

Why did the Womping Willow move location conveniently away from the school (and help from teachers) during the attack?

Why did we need to see the relocated Womping WIllow smote birds all the time? Again, more sinister?

What happened to Percy? He's now a whiny wimp nobody listens to in the hallway, as opposed to a whiny wimp people listened to previously.

Why are the students not wearing their uniforms or wearing them in a very hip-hop, "progressively" sloppy way? What's the statement the director is trying to make, that they're more "mature" and "cool"? On a related note, why is Malfoy, alone, wearing his uniform correctly? Is this clear difference in the book?

Are those really Malfoy's two friends from the previous films, or did one of them get replaced?

Why does Hagg's cry at the lakeside seem so poorly acted? And why is his hair a continuity mistake no one noticed?

Why does the word "brilliant", as in, "... it's brilliant" get constantly uttered?

Where did Prof. Snape come from during the full moon event? He suddenly shows up, starting to scold Potter, not noticing an 8 foot tall werewolf transforming two meters away.

Why do so many of the sets and locations look more like something out of Fight Club than a British boarding school, magic or otherwise?

With that said, I did like the ending, and the whole time travel bit. It was cleverly done.

Is it a prerequisite for the Defense Against the Dark Arts professor to be the crux and/or villain of the story? This makes 3 for 3 doesn't it?

Also, it's annoying when characters or plot points are introduced and then dropped off quickly after their "gimmick" is done. This is particularly obvious in sequels and/or series films.

Examples I noticed were: the girl ghost in the bathroom, the House selection ceremony, Harry's aunt and uncle having personalities, Headmaster's phoenix, Prof. Mag having more than one speaking scene, The appearance of a music teacher who is not introduced but is seen in the great hall, the divination prof. who is not seen in the great hall but is seen in her classes, the mandrake growing prof from HP2, who is not seen in the great hall, in her greenhouse, or anywhere else in the film, the magic car, Ron's broken wand, the hydraulic Loader Ripley uses to defeat the Alien Queen. oops, sorry, wrong film.

I don't want the film to explain everything. Of course not. But there are certain "beats" to every story that must be shown or given some treatment, however brief, to let the audience in on the act. (Pun intended)

Now, I know different directors have different takes on the same story. And characters are supposed to develop, and all. But there seemed to be a concerted effort to make this one very different from the previous two. It was a daring risk to take, when the previous two were beloved by millions. Comments by some of those millions who were not pleased with the changes in tone and approach are right here on IMDb. Multiply them by hundreds of thousands, and you get the idea.

Personally, I hope the next installment will resemble the first two more than the third. And will somebody please move Haggards house back up the mysteriously appearing hill, and put it near the castle again. Those mudslides must be murder!

HR

Right from the start, I wish to say that this is a wonderful film. I caught it on cable television here in Tokyo several years back. Like so many others remarked in their own circumstances, the film just "accidentally" presented itself. Willing to give it a chance, I kept it on for a few minutes. When I heard Michael Jayston's comically sarcastic comments in the opening scene, and the magical Topol "hiding" in his office, I was certainly hooked.

Hal Wallis produced, Carol Reed directed. If that weren't good enough for most film buffs, add John Barry to the list of those involved in this gem of a film. That's right, the same Barry who scored all of the great Bond films. You can hear his signature strings and brass right from the panoramic opening title sequence of London from the air.

"Everything's got to be earned."

The story is laid out as an explanation, a highlighting of the history of a couple to a private eye hired to investigate an alleged infidelity. Very cleverly done.

"Who's Aldous Huxley?"

The film touches on those precious difficulties couples face when both partners stem from different backgrounds. As an American living here in Tokyo for many years, I can deeply empathize with the situation portrayed in the film.

"I don't much care for Tuesdays."

Mia Farrow is captivating as the young American living in London. Michael Jayston is marvelous as the upright British accountant. As the "Public Eye", Topol is as addictive to the viewer as his character is to macaroons.

"He who locks his door locks his heart."

London is featured in all its bygone glory. I was impressed with the raw freshness of the street scenes. These are slightly reminiscent of the work of Richard Lester and his "mod" style of filming actual Londoners in action, such as in "The Knack" or "Help". Here, Barry's scoring of "The Public Eye" made these whimsical scenes a pure treat. Nothing less than soul moving cinematic moments are in store for you.

There is a charming, nice touch thrown in: a tip of the hat to Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee and their work in Hammer Films.

I understand it is difficult to get a copy of this film. The fact that it was shown on Japanese television at least, means that good prints exist and are out there. Luckily, I was able to record it when it was shown again in that same week.

"The Public Eye" or as it is also known, "Follow Me", is a truly marvelous film. See it.

Addendum: A little bird told me the above version, recorded from Japanese TV, is online at Google Video.

I'm really surprised to see the full spectrum of opinions expressed in describing this film. It's a good sign. If a work of art, and this film is art, can evoke such divergent opinions and emotions in an audience, then it's working.

The film is a winner. Don't listen to the technologically-dependent reviewers who say that the "special effects are lame". I've seen plenty worse special effects in newer, bigger budget films. If you look for flaws, you'll find them. Try watching Shakespeare performed on stage. Would you walk out because the stage lighting was lame? Grow up. It has long been my opinion that the folks who complain about special effects being "bad" or "cheap" are missing the point. The entire phenomenon of film is an "effect", a cheat, an illusion. The sum total of cheats and tricks are intended to transport your mind to another place, the setting of the film. The acting, scenery, effects are there to help you imagine, to aid your mind on its journey. So, when one complains that the acting is great, and the effects stink. It simply tells me that that viewer's mind is too weak to make the jump, to connect the dots, because some of the dots are not as boldly written as others.

You don't expect Otto Preminger to go out and start blowing up and sinking real battle cruisers, torpedo boats and the real Battleship Yamato, do you? Get serious, folks. Stop confusing narrative with documentary. Would you prefer grainy newsreel footage used throughout, as in the Pearl Harbor sequence showing Japanese Zeros at the outset of the film? I love to see war footage. But not in a feature film. Sorry. I'd rather see "special effects" than mismatched newsreel footage, which, due to obvious reasons, often substitutes different vessels and aircraft type in mid-scene!

In Harms Way is not a "war film" per se. It is a film that uses the war as its setting. It's based on a novel. And, as such, characterization is of prime importance. For those critics who complained that there wasn't enough action, let me ask, what was the last "action novel" you read?

Preminger does a fine job in visually transforming the story from the written word to the big screen. He does it with big stars, Wayne, Douglas, Neal, et al.

I won't comment on each of the actor's performances here; you can see for yourself how fine or poor their acting is by your own standards after watching this admirable film. There exists a wide range and enjoyable mix of characters in this story.

I will add, however, that John Wayne did a tremendous job here. Usually the critics of John Wayne's acting can be seen to be similarly cynical and ostrich-headed concerning the area of U.S. foreign policy. Such critics resent his "John Wayneness" much more than his skills in acting for good or bad. They despise what he represents, and therefore, anything he does or stars in. Here's an experiment: next time you hear someone making jokes about John Wayne's acting, inquire about their stance on U.S. foreign policy. I don't think you'll be surprised to find an overly negative and cynical attitude present in such individuals, particularly now. It's in vogue.

Watch the film. Ignore the shortcomings. A strong mind can do this easily. A weak mind will dwell on them. It's your choice. Enjoy HS

Which version, Hawks or Carpenter? There's a lot of talk about which one is better, etc. I do agree with many that they both are very different films, very different viewing experiences. I love most good sci-fi. Some of 50's sci-fi can be dated after viewing. I do not think The Thing is one of these films which suffers from time . It holds up splendidly. If you like dialogue, you'll love this movie. If you like innuendo, fast paced overlapped dialogue, great characters - and I don't use that word lightly - you'll love this movie.

If you want more suspense, a lot more blood, and a much more gloomy setting, certainly John Carpenter's remake is better in these areas. I own and enjoy viewing both films.

Certainly, the creature in Carpenter's version is much more frightening, and truer to the John Campbell short story from which the story is based. His shape shifting would have been impossible to show in the 50's version with the believability that is possible in today's F/X field.

Carpenter gives us a setting which is darker, colder, and more foreboding. A feeling of hopeless, and nameless dread pervades the camp. Certainly, the notion is clear that this could be the end of all of them, and of the world. There's both a lot less thinking, and a lot more action to be had here in the Carpenter 80's version than in the Hawks' 50's approach.

Hawks, by contrast, created a feeling of "whistling in the dark", which dominates the setting. The characters, and they are many and varied, all have their own particular take on what is happening and what should be done about it. There is a sense of hopeful, "We can do it. We can solve this problem" attitude throughout the entire film. This feeling of "let's keep our heads" is contagious and very quickly the audience finds itself rooting, rather than running.

One more point, and I think it's a big one. The characters in the Howard Hawks' 50's film are all likable, including the "heavy" - the wonderful Dr. Carrington. All the characters are capable, and in many cases, quite resourceful and ingenious. Each, always maintains a humorous, dry wit angle of attack on the situation without resorting to camp or parody seen in most comic film writing today. The military crew members, very quickly in the story, each displays a comical personality ribbing both the captain and the civil service nature of the military with natural ease. As someone once said, a complaining soldier is a happy soldier. So true. This is certainly no "military has all the answers" flick. The mistakes they make are roundly criticized by all in attendance, including the co-pilot's not so subtle comment about the splitting of the atom, "yeah, and that sure made the world happy, didn't it?" (laughter). Add to that, Ned Scott the newspaper man, and you've got a non-scientist, non-military chronicler character to round out the story, and give the audience someone with comparable skepticism about what to do next. Ned is the outsider who is now, like us, on the inside.

The John Carpenter version, by comparison, has mostly losers populating the story, I have to say. From the camp leader, Gary, on down to the radio operator, Windows, most of the characters seem more suited as inmates in a minimum security prison than manning a research science station. (maybe a reflection of the lack of students going into the field of science in recent years? (chuckle) And to make the point even more ironic, there is no military, the usual scapegoats, in the Carpenter version. (Gary, as leader, carries the gun, and we assume has some military/policing role, though it is never made clear in the film.) These are all scientists with the exception of the helicopter pilot, played by Kurt Russell, who seems to be the only clear thinking member of the entire bunch. Why none of the actual scientists approach the problem as clearly, and logically as the rogue washed-up helicopter pilot is also a mystery and in large part, a flaw.

In Hawks' version, Captain Hendry solicits advice from all in attendance, frequently asking the scientists and his crew technical questions for which he has no background to answer. This also gives the non technical audience member another "way in" to the technical side of things. (no pun intended)

Why Carpenter chose to have most of the characters unredeeming, lazy, and in most cases, quite stupid and ill behaving, is a mystery. I find the characters in the Hawks version much more true to life.

With all that said, I enjoy both films, each for their strengths and for their weaknesses. If you want blood and gore, more realistic sets, and are not discouraged by fairly shallow characters, the Carpenter version is for you.

If you want fast paced dialogue, memorable characters, and you enjoy a "can-do" attitude in dreadful circumstances, all done with a minimum of visible gore, then Hawks' The Thing awaits you.

humbleservant

(possible spoilers)

I agree with the above comments almost entirely with the small exception of the importance that the 80's political scene played as any kind of thematic backdrop for the story.

On the contrary, the WWII era, if anything, was to be the backdrop for the contemporary happenings within the plot.

I think the above commenter is reading too much into the mention of Nixon in the film and possibly projecting his/her own political leanings - obviously anti-Thatcher/Reagan - onto those of David Hare, the writer and director. In terms of Richard Nixon, who is mentioned in an anecdotal way at the outset of the story, Ian Holmes' character appears to sympathize with the former president when discussing a rumour about Richard and Pat's early courtship. And Venessa Redgrave's character admits things would "liven up" in their pub were the former president to suddenly appear. These are not the words of people suffering from "negative progression" as stated in the above comment.

The characters played by Redgrave, Holmes, Dench, not to mention the key character of John Morgan, are all in one way or another involved in academia. (though Holmes plays a barrister.) They live quite comfortably and somewhat happily - within the confines of the plot and theme of loneliness, and aloneness of course. Redgrave's country home would be an enviable house to live in by anyone's standards. To say that this is an environment of "Thatcher chaos", as the above commenter states, is quite off the mark, I feel. The story is about normal people, somewhat lonely, in the upper middle class regions of society living their lives, waxing philosophy and working at their jobs, when a young stranger (youth is an important aspect of the theme) appears and upsets their lives with his dramatic actions. This stranger's "behaviour" does not make them question their lives, nor does it need to. (They are all confident in their own beliefs and values.) It simply, as Redgrave hints in the pub, livens up the place. Breaks up the monotony. Changes the daily talk, the daily complaints to something a bit more meaningful.

It is a common misconception to interpret films as a 100% reflection of the political climate of the time. This mistake has been repeated throughout the history of film criticism. One good example is the much repeated "red scare" explanation to Don Segal's Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Segal himself, claims the comparison is nonsense, and he was simply making a thriller. A scary monster movie with no monsters.

Overall, Wetherby is an excellent film with noteworthy performances by the cast. Stuart Wilson, particularly stands out among them. So, as I've stated, I think the above commenter made an almost perfect review of the film aside from the perceived importance of the political background at the time of shooting. Politics, like it or not, isn't always at the source.