Not bad script tailored for Rock Hudson ,Doris Day and Tony Randall,gets Dean Martin Stella Stevens and Eli Wallach instead.And thats the main problem.The trio tries but they cant light up the screen like the original trio could.Most of the jokes are pretty much lost and many would be riot scenes are just mediocre and lukewarm.I dont know why Hudson and Day didnt do this as it is a much better script than Send me no flowers.I think they could have made a really funny movie out of this but it never happened unfortunately for fans of Hudson and Day like me.
What is there to say about a movie that makes you feel you just saw the battle of Midway?just wow.
If there is one thing I want to stress is the emotional factor.Modern Japan is a friendly and civilized country.But the Japan that fought the 2nd world war was brutal and extremely violent power.They were responsible for abominable war crimes and were really an evil empire at the time.So the US were really the heroes fighting evil.
Today there is a trend to whitewash Japan because for what they are now,but lets not forget the truth.
As for the probably greatest naval battle ever,its all in the history books.This movie just reminds us that once upon a time there were real heroes.
The fact that the title song has since then, become so popular but the movie hasnt tells basicaly how bad this movie is.The De Niro character is unbearably annoying ,and most of the story doesnt make any sense at all.De Niro and Minelli dont have any chemistry whatsoever.To make things worse a native New yorker like Scorsese decided for some incomprehensible reason to shoot a movie titled about his home town in backlots in LA.There isnt anything good about this movie except the title song and thats all.
Its rather hard to find a Matthau movie thats lousy.Its even harder to find a Matthau movie thats totally unfunny.This movie scorres on both counts.Its not even worth spending the time to talk about this,Matthau is supposedly a CIA agent who ,after discharged from active field Duty goes bananas,quits the service and starts acting like an 8 year old,which supposedly creates major trouble to his former employer.
Thats about the plot of this boring lousy movie.
Lady Gaga is not ugly and doesnt have an ugly nose
She says in the movie,people like the way i sound but not the way i look.They say my nose is ugly.They were probably thinking of Barbra Streisand.Lady Gaga is not a great beauty but is certainly a good looking girl and all this talk about her being ugly is hard to take.Also there is absolutely nothing wrong with her nose.Other than that the movie drags on in fourth quarter. and the songs are good but not great.
The basic plus for this movie is Lady Gaga is a decent actress,we knew she is good singer.Cooper is ok as a director,his performance is ok but i dont think he could really identify with the character.Good but not great movie.
Nicholson fresh off Chinatown walks through this,with one confused expression on his face.The story is about a reporter WHO is having an existential crisis and decides to Exchange identities with an arms dealer he meets at a secluded desert village. The arms dealer dies of a bad heart,and the reporter takes his passport leaving his own on the dead man.From then on he decides to follow the dead mans involvement with a guerrilla Force fighting a corrupt African leader,whom he had personally interviewed.We learn that his wife had criticized him for not standing up to the dictator in the interview. After selling some arms to the guerrillas,he becomes a target of the dictators International assassins.At that point the movie becomes muddled and stupid.Instead of trying to expose the dictators International spy ring and bringing them down using the help of the Police,the reporter is more concerned about escaping his wife and the police so as to keep his fake identity,something not really admirable.In the process he meets a young girl played by Maria Schneider and they both run together as if they were a couple of delinquents. And this goes on and on,through several international European locations and the movie becomes more and more boring.
-------SPOILERS------------ I think ,like the book,this series has to work on 4 levels.Historical,social,personal and philosophical.
The historical aspect of Napoleons invasion of Russia,is always interesting,and everything, all the historical details in this series are well made.The locations,the sets ,the costumes,the horses,the carriages,all the props,the digital work in the battle scenes,its all very well done and a greatly satisfying experience.Its a visual feast.For that alone this series is well worth watching. The Social aspect of early 19th century Russian aristocracy,is also pretty well presented.Most of the Social issues still make sense to the modern viewer,as desire for Social position and wealth is still understandable today.
Where this series lost me is when it comes to the lead trio.The two male lead characters never made any sense to me and the only character that looks like a real person at all is Natasha,as played by Lily JAmes.
Pierre,is a very hard character to play,because as he is written by Tolstoy,he is on the borderline between a charming man and a total idiot.So any adapting writers to write him and actors struggle to play him is to make him rather interesting and less of an idiot.I don't think either Davies or Dano managed that very well.I think he is more of an idiot in this series than an interesting personality.The defining scene ,that one has to feel if Pierre is a worthy personality,is when he finally gets together with Natasha in the end.I just didn't feel that.When he kissed her i felt like ,woah the poor girl!!!If things were done correctly one should have felt satisfied they get together.They just didn't click for me in this series.
The other character is of course Andrei.He never came alive for me in this series.For me here he is more of a cardboard character that never made any sense to the viewer.His motives are as obscure and perplexing as anything anyone has ever seen.Andrei is torn between duty, glory,position,ideals,family,romance,and existential values.Not exactly an easy character either.When he goes to war,or decides on his romance with Natasha,I don't think Norton managed to get through this character at all,i think he never understood him and just played him,as an incomprehensible historical figure.
The only one of the lead trio that survived in this series,IMO is Natasha .As played by Lily JAmes,she looks like areal person,mainly because i think she is much simpler than the other two lead characters.She has much simpler motives to get through her life,find romance and happiness.All goes terribly wrong for her all the time,and she is a character modern audiences i believe can understand much more easily,unlike the other two leads.
The rest of the cast does a pretty good job,with varying degrees of success but i didn't have much trouble with any one of them.The main supporting actors did a good job ,i think ,their job was much easier than that of the leads of course.
Finally,on the philosophical level,all attempts in any series i believe or any movie,are doomed to fail.Philosophy really doesn't translate to the cinema.Its something that belongs in the written words,one has to read it ,doesnt belong in the World of visual medium.FOr most philosophical ideas ,Tolstoy used mostly Pierre as a medium character ,and all attempts to present this concept in this series sounds just ridiculous.Pierre just bursts out every now and then ,some stupid sounding ideas about life that just make him look even more idiotic.Unfortunately,its impossible not to include some notion,of Tolstoys philosophical reflections since they are a basic part of his characters.
The story is about a man and a woman who live next door in the same apartment House,and they are both freshly separated.Neither of them can let go the past,and they begin a friendship realizing they are both in the same situation.
John Schneider and Catherine Hicks are very young and attractive here,and the script isn't bad,its not the run of the mil TV romance movie,its much better than that.Also starring is Ana Alicia of Falcon Crest fame. If you happen to like the stars and want to see a likable romantic movie,this is it.
Also,there are a couple nice songs in it,and Catherine performs one song.
as all other review said this is about a real life Brazilian prostitute who became famous from a blog she kept,and where she talked about her clients and even rated their performance in bed.She became very popular and even wrote a popular book about her life.In this day and age porn sells,thats about it.Either a girl sells it directly or indirectly,society seems still fascinated with the seemy side of prostitution. The problem with this movie is,the character never really becomes likable,her job would not be so objectionable if one understood why or how she ended up being a prostitute.It is never really explained,other than a story of a woman who wants to be independed,which hardly explains her trip into prostitution,as thousands of women manage independence by working at respectable jobs.The fascination with this story is all about sex,and her sexual experiences,which makes it really pretty much a commercial for the porn profession.The life of a prostitute is just glamourized,shown as just a job with a lot of money,glamour,success and popularity,pretty much anything a girl would want.There is a downside about drug addiction,but even that is shown as just a side effect of our times and of living the high life,,not especially of the profession of a hooker. All in all,i think this movie is lost in its own sensationalizing of its subject and ends up losing any focus on the reality of the story it tries to tell.
At the time of this writing there are only 2 reviews of this film,and they have already mentioned all the good qualities,attractive cast,beautiful,locations and a romantic story about long lost childhood love. I liked this film,so i wasn't sure if i was supposed to write what bothered me about it but i figured to say a word. The problem is the story itself.Dujardin plays a man in his forties who is happily married,but when the plot develops we find out that he had an enormous childhood love ,at about 11 years old, when he was growing up in Algeria.The attraction was so great with his childhood sweetheart, that the day he had to leave Algeria he almost went crazy. So the normal question is,what happened after that?the movie never tells us,and suddenly jumps,30 years later. But even if we are to understand ,he was too young to be able to do anything about it,after a few years,lets say at 20 years old ,he would have certainly looked for the girl.But the movie tells us ,that he knew nothing about her,in fact we must assume he didn't seem to care at all,until this story resurfaced 30 years later,which doesn't make sense. This is pretty important,because ,the whole plot is based on this incredibly strong longing he has for his childhood love.
Sinatra was an OK actor in some roles,he was never a great actor,not even a very good one.This story of an embittered man who destroys everything he touches and mostly destroys himself,was in need of a great actor. As it is,Sinatra does the best he can,but he just cant rise to the level of dramatics required for such a part.You look at him and ,its still Sintara trying to play the drunk and the hopeless.Never at any moment does the star get lost in the character.Its just a Sinatra vehicle,just like most of his movies.It never makes you wonder or feel about the character. Also,its really overlong and at one more of his joking routines i found myself saying , oh not again.
this is one of my favorite movies.Its not that funny as a comedy,but i don't think it supposed to be a wild comedy,its clearly a feel-good family movie about a father,worried about his daughter who has reached college age and is about to leave the household.
There's comedy element,mainly from Joe Flynn as the tyrannical main client of McCready,and Jody Baker as a egomaniac artist,but the main value of this movie is the extremely likable McCready family itself and the daughter's gang of friends who are as seventies as you can get.
Bob Crane and Barbara Rush are the parents and Kurt Russell and Kathleen Cody are the young people in love. There really isn't a false note in this Disney movie,if one wants to paint everything that was great about America,and is nearly lost, its pretty much all in this movie.People are kind,they have feelings,kids respect their parents,they are all good-hearted and the kids are faithful to their friends.Its a Disney movie,so one expects something like that,but its all well done and natural,and the cast is really likable.
Like other poster said the wedding at the end is probably the most beautiful wedding ever filmed.I watched this when i was a teen myself ,and now i'm middle-aged and besides this film holding well through the years ,i can remember as a kid i wished i had a girlfriend as pretty and kind as the daughter Wendy is in this movie,and a life similar to the McCreadys.
Hollywood has gone down the drain,they think that ,all Americans are as sick as they are over there,and that there are no more nice people in this world.The world is not just sex and violence fest. I just wish movies like this one could still be made.
this noir is well-directed but the story is so dated and incredible that its hard to get interested in it. The story is about cops sent to transpost a mob's wife from Chicago to LA,using a train,so that she can testify against her husband.There are several things that are incredible in this story,one is that when one of the cops gets killed early-on,the other cop doesn't ask for any kind of back-up and sets to do the job alone.Then ,when he boards the train,even though he immediately realizes who the gangster is,he doesn't proceed to take any action,waiting for the man to try an attempt,he even seems afraid,when he can easily arrest the individual and disarm him any time he wants,or even order him off the train. This is the kind of plot ,and its kinda ridiculous.The gangsters are running all over the train and the cop is mostly trying to avoid them,which somehow one thinks it should be the other way round.
This one boasts some good singing from Rolando Villazon,a great"furtima",nice theatrical values,the leads are cute,Villazon looks funny and Netrebko is gorgeous.In the music department i really didn't like the conducting or orchestration much,in my mind they took too many liberties.Netrebko,like i said is gorgeous as Adina and as she is a great dramatic operatic soprano,she has much expression and ease of movement on the stage.In theatrical terms this one is my favorite version,certainly way better than the concert-looking one of Pavarotti and Battle,and i also like it better than the Gheorghiu,but in terms of singing Netrebko,i think seems too concentrated on her acting and seemed to me to be rushing her arias.If you want pure melody you are better off with Battle,but Netrebko does have an impressive voice,only i think the comedic bel canto is not her forte.So,all in all,an uneven production ,with great theatrics but not so great in the music department.
...is a more appropriate title.Like a couple other reviewers have said, the Scacchi character is so unlikable,that its impossible to care what happens to her.D'Onofrio plays a likable character but who for some inexplicable reason falls for this woman.Of course,the George character is Greta Scacchi,and one assumes the D'Onofrio character,Gavin, just goes crazy over her looks.But in my book,i would never sleep with that woman even if she did look like Greta Scacchi.We are talking about a pretentious,snobbish,self-centered,heartless bitch,who only remembers about that particular man when she needs some sex,doesn't care in the least that he is married.Like another reviewer said,she needed a good slap in the face.I think the people who made this movie thought they made a love story.They either know absolutely nothing about love or have an extremely perverse sense of humor.The only good thing about this movie,is that the sex scenes look very realistic,probably because Greta and D'Onofrio had an affair in real life.
this is one of very few color pictures made,up to that time,so its interesting if only for that.The cast is great looking,MacMurray and Madeleine Carroll made many movies together,here one also gets a very young Sterling Hayden.This was supposedly shot on location ,which was very uncommon in those days,and it shows in a beautiful horseriding sequence.The story is pure southern flag-waving,the south is represented by the MacMurray character,who is a poor,educated,honest farmer full of ideals about southern tradition.The yankees are a bunch of ignorant,too rich with too much time on their hands folk,who are only interested in a good time.Anyway,if one gets over the flag-waving ,its still a goodlooking picture with some attractive actors.
As few people pointed out,this is based on the true story of Morris and Lona Cohen,an American couple who were spying for the KGB and lived in England when they were arrested in 1961.This TV movie made from the play of the same name,is about an also real couple,Bill and Ruth Search,and their daughter,who lived across the Cohens,and whose house was used by MI5 to watch on the Cohens. In real life,the Searches and the Cohens of course knew each other and were friends but there is no evidence that they were especially close as this movie shows them to be.This story over-dramatizes this situation,making Ruth Search incredibly attached to Lona Cohen,to the point that when the latter is arrested,it breaks Ruth's heart.Even as a play however,is hard to believe,because we are told the two women have been friends for about 3 years,they were not lifelong friends,and Ruth Search(Burstyn) in the play and movie still has her husband and daughter to care for,she is not a lonely woman.The shock of the true identity of their neighbors is true enough but the complete breakdown of Ruth is not justified in any way.Still,the movie is interesting ,in the fact that it is based in the unusual story of the Cohen couple who after being imprisoned 8 years for spying,returned to Russia.
this is one those movies where you can go terribly wrong,because of the director and the stars.I mean,how bad can a movie be with Henry Fonda and Sylvia Sidney?.Well,it can be awful,when the story doesn't make any sense at all.Its just totally ridiculous from beginning to end.Fonda plays an ex-convict who does one stupid thing after another,and whose life is miserable beyond belief, because of some divine bad luck.There's no point going over the story,its hard to understand what this movie wants to say,seemingly that some people are born to be criminals and end up badly.Which is load of crap of course.I was so disappointed to see two wonderful stars in this horrible movie.
I just didn't like a thing about this.It looks like a WWII war movie,only you have some marvel hero fighting Nazis?I don't know,it just looks terrible. Captain America is an American soldier who shoots the bad guys with regular guns ,like any soldier,only he wears a ridiculous costume and the only thing that reminds us he is a comic strip superhero is that he has this super shield that is bulletproof. Try thinking of 1962 series Combat with some guy dressed in tights and carrying a shield ,it just looks ridiculous.The only time you actually wake up and the movie generates some potential is in the last scene when the movie ends!!
I love this movie.Its funny and very well acted.Williams and Russell make two excellent former high school buddies who used to play ball and now are middle-aged. The whole atmosphere of the small town characters,for whom the town high school football team was especially important, is very well done and all the supporting actors do a good job.There are some very funny one liners and a spirit-lifting story.I've watched this a few times and always get a laugh with the characters and the story.I don't understand why this movie is not better known.I hadnt heard of it when i first watched it some years ago. Very funny and underrated.
This is about the campaigns to conquer Italy of German Emperor Frederick ,whom the Italians called Barbarossa because he had a red beard.Its obvious that a movie of this scope would need a Hollywood grade-A budget and basically everything grade-A.They didn't have it in this movie,they tried with second-grade actors like Rutger Hauer and a mediocre budget.Which means its not exactly cheap,some battle scenes are pretty decent but its also not exactly satisfying in size and scope of such events.If they had managed to bring to life such historical events,they would be worthy of academy awards.That said,its not bad as a mediocre medieval movie,but its just too small for the story it is undertaking.They could have limited themselves to a smaller part of the Barbarossa campaigns.Yet,for people who like medieval historical movies with battle scenes,its an OK effort.
This series is consistent with its title ,it tells the story Of John Adams.Unfortunately,i hoped to see some of the war going on,but there was none in this.Every battle is just mentioned by someone telling Adams what happened or by some wounded retreating soldiers.There is no war in this.All there is,is a bunch of middle-aged people arguing over whether they should fight a war.Thats in the first episodes.I really had enough and didn't watch the rest.Giamati is a decent actor but lacks any charisma whatsoever,after a while you just get bored watching him. John Adams was important to the revolution but more important were the people who fought and died in this war,but this series doesn't seem to think important to concern itself with the actual fighting.Very disappointing,for what it is,it is well made but i think a movie about the revolution should have some actual revolution in it.
This is a terrible,horrible movie,unless one agrees with its basic premise that sluts are cool,even at 50. Goldie and Sarandon play a couple 50 year-olds who in their youth were rock-groupies. We enter the story when they are middle-aged,Goldie is till going on as she was at 20,and Sarandon changed to a(fake)conservative woman,who brings up a family.The key word here is FAKE,because Satrandon is NOT presented as a normal 50 year-old who just grew-up but as a woman who secretly longs for her wild youth. The script written by probably some woman who never had sex and strongly regrets her ways,is a glorification of the life of a slut,not only at youth but even at middle-age.Goldies character is presented as a"cool" person,and the actress,in a horrible performance just walks around with the attitude of a rock-star,understandably because she once slept with some of them. The movie is of course laughable but because its not presented as a satire but even has a moral message!!!!,i have to say it is nauseating.Unless you think that the message,is OK,and that middle-aged women should teach their daughters that they should be sluts and whores and its OK,as long as they don't try to hide it,which that and only that is the ultimate sin. Maybe the worse movie i have ever seen.Unfortunately i cant rate it lower than 1,there is no 0 in IMDb rating.
This movie stars Van Damme who has been in many B-movies and is known as a b-movie action star.I believe thats why this movie gets this low rating. This movie is an a-movie and one of the best action movies and one of my favorites.The rating is simply ridiculous.Van Damme may not be a first rate actor but can he hold his own in this kind of material.Everything else in this movie is first rate.The plot is interesting,there are all kinds of chases and action scenes,All the action scenes are terrific and there's plenty of them.The bad guy is one impressive dude,makes for some really awesome wrestling scenes with Van Damme. The girl is the gorgeous Natasha Henstridge.In my book this is one fine action movie.
just for aviation fans who want see a real Russian fighter plane
i watched this because i wanted to see the SU-30.Its a very rare opportunity to see any real Russian fighter because in most well known aviator movies of the 80's like Top Gun and Iron Eagle,American producers couldn't get their hands on Russian aircraft using ridiculous substitutes ,usually as MIGS,planes like F-5's and even Phantoms. So if you want to see a real Russian plane its in this movie. The gimmick about it being a super special plane was not needed at all,they could have had the same story with terrorists wanting to hijack the real plane without having to make up a story about an imaginary plane. However i think the aerial scenes leave a lot to be desired.If only these Russian guys who made this movie could at least get that right. The rest of the movie suffers from the obvious fact the producers wanted to sell it to the American market.I mean if there is something more ridiculous than Russian pilots and generals speaking badly dubbed English,and American English at that,i don't know what that is.That was the most annoying thing for me.Actually some of the Russian actors didn't do a bad job but the dubbing made their performance sound like some guy reading a newspaper in his toilet. Also i didn't see the point of not hiring a couple of cheap European and American actors to play the respective parts.I mean,the lead female is obviously a Russian actress playing an American.I'm sure they could have hired a non-name American actress who would do a more believable job. All these things i think could have been avoided and with the same budget. Out of the 3 names Assante does an OK job,McDowell is good as the villain,Hauer appears very briefly.