verna-a

I have to ask, what is the value of this person, (Colin Firth's character) that we are expected to have interest in him and sympathy for him? He sleepwalks through his job, is perfunctory with the people he encounters, does not seem to have family, and spends his time mooning about and plotting self destruction. As his great friend supposedly, Julianne Moore is pretty improbable, but I appreciate her advice to him to do something with his life. If you are depressed, look to help other people, or embrace some cause, and quit being so self-absorbed. I hate the shallowness and privilege of these people, the drinking, emoting and the idle chatter. I am probably a homophobe as the romantic stuff makes me want to puke. However, imagining for a moment that the great love that Colin lost was a woman, that wouldn't have improved my opinion of the film. I can't help relating the situation to instances of celebrities committing suicide, which make me ponder whether if their lives had been a bit harder, they would have been more resilient and less weakly self-indulgent. I'm just trying to watch the film til the end so I can feel that this review is a fair one, but believe me, it requires considerable effort.

I enjoyed my viewing of this 1954 film, a early offering on the airplane suspense theme. Is the partly disabled and under-fueled plane going to make it to the Californian shore? Will the flight crew pull together to make the right decisions? Can the passengers refrain from going crackers and precipitating disaster? Of course the details are very dated, but nothing really bothersome, and sexism and racism are at a surprisingly low level, unless one takes offence at glamour girls. It's a quality offering, well-directed and quite convincingly detailed. The passenger vignettes are varied and interesting, not really cliched or overly sentimental, and the acting is universally high quality. I have to give special mention to John Wayne's face and Robert Stack's big grey eyes. Loved it! The only negative aspects for me were that it could have been trimmed down by about 20 minutes, and the theme music is definitely over-used.

I'm a big Monroe fan but my long wait to get to see "River of No Return" didn't really pay off for me. Marilyn does her usual schtick but it just doesn't work here, she's too far out of her element. Of course she is an eyeful, especially in her musical numbers, but it isn't enough to save the movie. Mitchum is on autopilot, but just good enough as this is his usual fodder. Rory Calhoun is a cheerful baddie, and the little boy is professional, but the film is too weak in too many respects to deserve any praise. Any authenticity is lacking, with unconvincing back projections making the on-river action a total fail, not much drama in the town action, story and dialogue lacking any distinction, and the love element devoid of any spark. So it's a nothing of a movie, with only the scenery possessing any distinction. What a disappointment!

I see from other reviews that some viewers are troubled by this film's failure to fall squarely into the comedy or noir genres. Maybe that's why I like it, for isn't life a mixture of comedy and tragedy? My interest didn't flag during the movie as I found it fresh and original and the plot twists unpredictable. I'm not a big Glenn Ford fan but he hits this nail squarely on the head. Even though his Joe Miracle is more accurately a victim than a baddie, he has been sucked into the world of crime and violence. Can the beautiful Jenny Jones redeem him, and can he even survive? It's lineball all the way. Evelyn Keyes is just lovely to look at, and there's lots of character actors doing their bit, some of them only children. I'm going off to do a bit of research on who wrote it and who directed it. They deserve kudos. Surprisingly good entertainment.

I can't remember when I last walked out on a film as I hate to waste my money, but I departed from this one without regret. It was at about at the 90 min mark so I guess I didn't miss much. I don't care what happened in the end as I didn't like any of the people in it. The film is all bang bang, flash flash, boom boom interspersed with groans and curses. I'll give it 3/10 as the actors tried hard when they were allowed to, and I guess it had novelty value and technological wizardry. I'll blame IMDb for my negative experience as I did check for the 7.1 rating (whaatt??) before I went. Some people are seriously sick, the writer and director for example.

I love Cary Grant and can certainly tolerate Leslie Caron, but this movie failed to take off for me. I feel Grant is miscast as the misanthropic beachcomber, it's a sort of Humphrey Bogart curmudgeon part really (apparently Grant felt differently). It's mainly that this lightweight funny stuff is in a war setting. The Japanese are overrunning Pacific islands, what a hoot, while these people are sweating the small stuff, picking on each other, and pursuing their personal preferences, including getting married over the radio when their conflict is at a low ebb. You know what, I suspect that servicemen such as those on the other end of the radio had other things to do rather than cater for civilians behaving like this. Yes, I know, it's just a movie but I found it irritating. The gravitas of Trevor Howard, which makes such a great contribution in other movies, is wasted here. It's a couple of hours of silliness really. The main thing that can be said in its favour is that Grant looks great at age sixty and can still pull off that "I was a Male War Bride" comedic schtick.

This is a cracking good movie and with considerable relevance to the 2020s, despite its 1960s vintage. Initially I didn't see myself persisting with it, as in the early scenes the action and dialogue were pretty mystifying. Then, with Kirk Douglas, we start to put together the unthinkable plot to overthrow the US government. I liked Douglas more in this movie than in others I have seen. There is an absence of the gritted jaw macho vibe which is usually a bit over the top. His face is powerful and impressive, as is that of Frederic March as the President. Burt Lancaster fails to make a big impression as the baddie - I think in the circumstances he would have been right to inject a suggestion of megalomania. Perhaps though, there is a deliberate intention to suggest that an extreme of patriotism is enough to lead a man like this down the wrong path. As the President says, though, how can you value this nation and not respect the democratic structures and processes which are at the heart of its ethos? I'm getting close here to the contemporary relevance. Just what reason is justification for people to try and overturn a democratically elected administration? A point that can be argued. But I think most would agree that just thinking you know better on some point of policy isn't one of them.

I'd praise this film as one of the better efforts of the Australian film industry, if it wasn't abundantly clear that it depends on the subtle, low key acting of Anthony Hopkins to anchor it in anything like plausibility. Everyone else in it is a bit too broad in their character depictions, and generally speaking the smaller their part, the broader their acting. The burgeoning talent of Russell Crowe and Toni Collette is evident however, and these early roles are ones they never need to be ashamed of. The Australianness of the factory employees may be somewhat exaggerated, and their business conduct pretty disgraceful, but the film does succeed in depicting them as rather loveable. There is a tension between the need of businesses to make money to be sustainable, and the reality that they are a big part of people's lives. In the end the tension is unresolved. Does anyone really think it is feasible for Ball's to turn around and make a profit? It is and is likely to remain a sheltered workshop, while the money lasts. I enjoyed the film, particularly the 60s setting. I really don't think that there were long upright handlebar bikes like Carey's around then, though. Boys rode bikes with the handlebars spiraled downward.

"PIcnic" has surprising power for a film which has such obvious flaws. As the macho drifter who upsets the lives of small-town folk in Kansas, William Holden is badly miscast. He not only is 10 years too old, but his sardonic face projects the wrong personality. He works hard at his acting but there is a certain hard-bitten quality he can't shed, which is the last characteristic this character should project. Just imagine how this part would be cast these days - we would get the passionate youthful bad boy that the part calls for. Kim Novak is also wrong for her part as the town's young beauty queen, irresistibly attracted to the newcomer. While there is a charm to her character's quiet, gentle and thoughtful personality, she is more Hollywood starlet than a naive 19-year-old homecoming queen. Together they are scarcely the ideal Romeo and Juliet, but the screenplay is powerful enough to engage the viewer. The sets and cinematography are attractive and make the film a pleasure to watch. The bit players (if it is not inappropriate to refer to the effervescent Rosalind Russell under this heading) do absolutely fine, I love them all. The dialogue is crisp and the action never lags. To the present-day viewer, the 1950s are a major presence in the film. To me it is sweetly evocative, and while gender stereotyping is unmistakably a factor in the lives of the characters, the family and neighbourhood relationships are so kind and gentle that their world appears in no way an unsupportive environment. I enjoyed spending an hour-and-a-half in their company.

There is a very dated feeling to this movie about an unusual marriage and its ups and downs. Of course, it is an unabashed star flick for BS, and I'd like to think more is expected these days of a movie. But realistically I suppose narcissism and wish fulfilment never go out of date. However the modern woman might question that losing weight, changing your hairdo, and wearing tight clothes is a PC way to make a man love you. It's contradictory too, as the previous message was that be wanted to marry her because of her intelligence and easy-to-get along with personality. So I felt uncomfortable with the denouement, but in the meantime it's easy to watch. There's plenty of humour, but all pretty broad. Jeff Bridges plays the husband with gusto, Lauren Bacall is great, and the other actors give full value. George Segal looks like he wishes he had more to do. So far so good, but really it's shallow, superficial and predictable. It has considerable polish as a production, but sorry Babs, it really doesn't do you credit because the story is so trivial. Watchable maybe, but now I feel I wasted my evening.

The quality is there in this film, and from moment to moment it is certainly gripping. Van Heflin and Barbara Stanwyck deliver polished and professional performances, and Lizabeth Scott is beautiful and sympathique in her "tarnished ingenue" role. Kirk Douglas is very interesting to watch in this early role. All the expressions and mannerisms are there but he is not cast to type (or what became his type). If I only saw part of the film I would give it higher marks than my final rating. That is because, as it goes on, the story starts to get bogged down, and the scenes become poorly motivated, wordy, and melodramatic. The viewer is looking for the end to be in sight for some time, but no, they continue to try and milk it for more drama. What a pity! I'll keep the ranking to a 6/10 as a sympathy vote for the actors, and the director, but a raspberry for the screenplay.

I have seen more authentic films about post-war Germany but this tale is pleasant enough viewing. There are more than a few instances of clumsy direction and poor acting which are somewhat disengaging, but the film does seem to improve as it goes along. For some reason the initial scenes are very brief and perfunctory. Further into the film there are some quite dramatic scenes with the heroine escaping various fates. Dana Wynter is very beautiful eye candy, but she is saddled with a poorly written character and radiates sulkiness for most of the film, before an improbable U-turn. Mel Ferrer is a likeable and graceful hero (cute butt, Mel!) but is scarcely portrayed with any depth. When it comes to charm, the piano-playing friend steals the scene. I enjoyed the "lucky break" the heroine experiences at the end of the film, which leaves you with a warm feeling. So overall, a positive rating, but I think the guy who wrote the novel (by all accounts a more realistic version) has probably never stopped complaining about what Hollywood did to his opus..

I'm surprised to read as many positive reviews as there are for this movie, which I thought was a bit of a loser. This tale of negotiations for the release of a kidnapped American soldier in postwar Berlin is a bit of a talkfest which fails to achieve much suspense. The opposing side, the Russians, are barely çharacterized except as a pair of klutzy, easily bluffed soldiers right at the end. There is a lot of talk about people who scarcely appear, or don't appear at all. Broderick Crawford does best with his part, although it is stereotyped. Gregory Peck gives it a shot, but his part does not add up to a convincing or sympathetic character. The mysterious Hoffy fails to charm or interest, she is just colourless. The bit parts aren't particularly interesting either. Some strong action would redeem these weaknesses, but it's mostly people walking in and out of rooms. There is some sassy talk but it is stagey and unconvincing. So it wasn't really worth anyone's time and has to rate as borderline for entertainment value.

I became a parent quite late, comparatively speaking, and can attest that the unrelieved care of a small child is a massive assault on the nerves and a negation of one's identity. So I'm not without sympathy for the lead character in this movie. Its simply not for everyone, but some people don't realize this until it's too late. I note that there are a lot of reviewers who are unsympathetic (largely male I assume), chiefly expressing the same bafflement as the husband in the picture. Anyone who watches family history programs must be aware that parental desertions are quite common in real life. We praise the strength of the remaining parent, and consider the one that does the runner to be selfish and despicable. Yet I have to say that when Gemma Arterton's character takes off in this movie, I was cheering. I fully accept that she understood that she was unable to be a positive factor in her childrens' lives, and she was doing something that was essential to her survival. That's about the extent of my support as I found the balance of the movie disappointing. I would have liked to see her take some positive steps to build a new life, and to demonstrate some self insights and a path out of depression. But we don't get any of that, the best you can say is that she is maybe seeing a way to put guilt aside. There is a lot of powerful material here which certainly engages, however you want to judge the wife. To this extent I feel that it is underrated.

I am probably a sour old thing but after a lifetime of movie-watching I am not impressed by heavyhanded tearjerkers. This film has all the signs of being the work of film-makers that are so much in love with their material that they lose their judgment. For the first two-thirds of the film, my major problem was difficulty in seeing, hearing and understanding what was going on. The heavy accents and extremely poor lighting created a feeling of disengagement in me. When you can't see who is in the room, or are baffled as to the exact situation, frankly, you lose interest. And some scenes were milked heavily, for example the wedding which went on far too long. In the last part of the film, unaccountably the lighting is better and the dialogue clearer, I wonder why. The two leads have nice faces and elicit sympathy, but then suddenly one of the characters has a drastic personality change, come on! I enjoyed quite a lot of the settings, when I could see them, but the ethnic card is overplayed. Generally I felt authenticity was lacking. People who lead hard lives tend to be dour and taciturn, as indeed some of the characters are. The "Chris" character was out of place, as she seemed sentimental and romantic. The narrator is apparently not her, but the flowery descriptions of Chris's sentiments don't help. I much prefer a drier style in film, and find that truly moving films have this, and not the ones where emotions are telegraphed. Just not my cup of tea at all.

I can't think of a film I have seen recently that has annoyed me more than "The Lovers". I can't make up my mind whether the problem is that it's a bad film, or that it shows behaviour which I reject as unethical and unacceptable. It is a bad film to the extent that it is an unconvincing portrayal of a marriage. I have no sense that the pair have a shared history, and the dialogue is stagey and implausible - do people really say "Hey" when they encounter each other moving around the house? Yet the movie is not so bad that I wanted to turn it off. I really wanted these appalling people to get their comeuppance. They were both so unattractive that they didn't deserve one partner let alone two. I can't say that the scenario is totally unrealistic though, as I know both from observation and experience that married people are unfaithful and sometimes carry on affairs for years. Personally I just couldn't look at myself in the mirror, let alone tell the strings of lies necessary. I am a strong critic of too much gunplay in modern films, but this is one film I would have liked to have ended in a hail of gunfire. Or at least that they each ended up on their own, which is what they richly deserved. Can I do a rewrite to that effect please?

I think this is one of those films you call a "tour de force" and it is largely as a result of Annette Bening's performance. And yet I have to say that the power of her performance is at the expense of some aspects of the film. If we are indeed supposed to sympathize with her character's shock and suffering at the sudden end of her 29-year marriage, any such reaction is scuttled by the fact that she is such a selfish, sarcastic, narcissistic b*tch. Never mind her husband finally leaving, the wonder is that he hadn't slipped a knife between her ribs anytime the past 29 years. And the wonder is also that her son hangs around to be caring and supportive, as she doesn't really guard her tongue where he is concerned either. If it is indeed the story of the director's parents' marriage, I guess the dialogue is what he wanted it to be, but it takes the focus firmly away from the sorrow of relationship breakdowns and plants it firmly in the territory of personality disorder. A mite confusing. It's an enjoyable watch however. Now here's something, I don't really like Bill Nighy in films as he strikes me as hammy, but he is perfect in this as the withdrawn but decent husband. Josh O'Connor acquits himself well as the son who manages not to push Mummy off the cliff despite my urging. An engrossing film, and I defy you not to have an opinion.

I scarcely ever like biopics, and as it turned out I wasn't going to start with "Churchill's Secret". The main reason is that they nearly always take a lend of a famous personality to provide audience motivation and engagement, rather than relying on the merits of the story and the screenplay. The Churchill legend is tapped here and it turns out to be a weak basis for a rather dull and slow movie. In some ways I didn't mind spending a couple of hours in this world, mainly because of the Chartwell setting which brought recollections of a past visit. The character actors do well with what material they have, and are well-costumed and coiffed. I think it's a weakness that the film focuses on family drama rather than evoking national and global tensions, which are referred to, but not effectively exploited. Lindsay Duncan is beautiful to look at as Clemmie, but she is rather unlikeable, which is a pity. Michael Gambon ticks a familiar box as a senior British male actor in portraying Churchill, but his depiction didn't especially evoke Churchill for me. It's a tough call, but it's one of the weaknesses making this film an "also ran".

This apparently true-life story provides some potentially gripping material. Why then does it struggle to reach the pass mark for suspense and audience engagement? Well to start with, it could be wittier, and better paced. The long expanse of footage before the deception is launched (as it were), needs trimming by at least half-an-hour. But the main problem is the characters, and the actors portraying them. The story more or less goes on hold while we are exploring the particular angsts of the three leading characters, but frankly, the interest just isn't there. You just want to give them a shake and say "don't you know there's a war on?". Colin Firth does angst-ridden in his usual constipated style, but whatever charisma he might have possessed has faded. I have liked Matthew McFadyen in other things but not here. Is he wearing a papier-mache nose? I wasn't sure but he acts as though he is. I respect Kelly McDonald as an actress but she doesn't have the looks or charm to pull this part off. Collectively they pretty much kill off the story. I will say that the all too brief action footage towards the end is brilliant. Should have been more of this and less emoting in nightclubs and on doorsteps. Overall a disappointment, I expect more of the Brits who can do this sort of thing so well.

Very often I start watching a TV series and don't persist beyond an episode or two, but "Bang" has held me through series 1. I'm not sure why, as typically I find very dark stories repulsive. I think the brilliance of the acting is undeniable, and Catrin Stewart and Jacob Ifan have very attractive faces. The smaller parts don't disappoint either. One reason I'm surprised at the series' appeal is that it is largely in Welsh, whereas "foreign language" films are usually a big turnoff for me. The story and the dialogue are good enough, despite some implausibilities. Why does Sam let Rhys beat him up without retaliation although he is the larger man? Need some time in the gym, Sam! The other frustrating thing is that there are several men with short dark hair and chiselled features representing different characters, and I couldn't retain who they were or which one was on the screen at a given time. So I'm sure I missed quite a lot. I'll dip into Series II but be ready to bail out, as series often seem to deteriorate. Anyway, worth a try if you're looking for some quite gripping viewing.

It's 1999 and all these wonderful actors are in their prime. It's a pleasure to watch them and listen to them deliver Wilde's witty lines from their expressive and attractive faces. There it just about ends, other than acknowledging that the costuming, hairstyling and sets are superlative. The story and the characters are typically Wilde, nothing that is more than clever in a superficial sort of way. I don't think I would waste the time to watch it again although watching it once was an acceptable pastime.

To date, all the user reviews of this series give it 10/10, so could I do less? So how is the overall rating only 8.3? I don't get it. However, to chime into the overall praise, this is a cracking good drama which is remarkably true to the novel by Alexandre Dumas. In comparison with other versions, it provides a clear exposition of the major threads of the story. I saw it in my teens and recently had the pleasure of reprising it after an interval of more than 50 years. I had never forgotten the closing lines of dialogue and was pleased to find that my recollection was accurate. Considering the series as a whole, it starts off quite well and the first 6 or so episodes are workmanlike, given the low budget. The seafaring and prison scenes are handled quite competently given the challenges involved with a small B&W screen, but things get easier with the move to Paris. However the real magic of the series is the depiction of the enigmatic and Machiavellian figure of the Count. Charismatic Alan Badel is quite simply magnificent, with the profile of an eagle, and the clear and musical articulation of his lines. Apart from his mesmerising performance, there is time to admire the depth of acting talent right through the cast. They may fluff their lines occasionally, but they are fully in command of the characters they portray. Both cast and crew richly deserve plaudits, and this series stands as a tribute to the talent which the BBC could marshal in the 1960s.

Dumas' classic tale is a heavyweight drama but somehow this version is reduced in impact. As the kidnapped and brutally abused Edmond Dantes, Jim Caviezel has the opportunity to rise to the heights of power and pathos, but remains mostly a pretty boy. There are other pretty people to look at, and this kept my eye on the screen (I am not counting Guy Pearce with his bouffant hairdo), but nobody makes much impact. Richard Harris comes off best in the role of the Abbe Faria. Maybe I'm dating myself here, but I can't help thinking of the late great Alan Badel as Dantes in the BBC series in the late 1960s. How we have descended from those heights! I dislike the changes made to the story by the smart Alec writers, particularly the departure from the bittersweet ending of the original, which acknowledges that revenge may be accomplished but the past cannot be erased. In summary, this film is acceptable entertainment, but is a shadow of the great novel.

Anyone who reads the synopsis knows this is going to be a sentimental film, and so it is, but not in a heavy-handed way. The female lead (Hong Chau) is the woman who arrives in town with her young son to clear out the cluttered house of her recently-deceased (and estranged) sister. Neither mother or son are the type to make friends easily, but they do slip into relationships with other people, especially an elderly neighbour (Brian Dennehy). The film has a gently elegiac note and seems to be about endings (the sister's life, and the neighbour's independent life) but there are hints of beginnings. I had some resistance to the timeline of the work on the house eg why not order a skip straight away? And why not dispose of the dead cat immediately, and in a responsible way? I'm always puzzled why working people in the US are depicted as never being able to afford things - of course with the exception of pizza etcetera. And why not retain some furniture in the house? That's just me, I always take a practical view! Regards the acting, as the mother Hong Chau is fine, the kid (Lucas Jaye) is great, and Brian Dennehy as the neighbour could do this sort of thing in his sleep. I'm fine with having devoted some time to watching this film. As an older person I certainly spend time contemplating my end and worrying about the burden my stuff is going to be to those I leave behind. But I would recommend that younger viewers find something more cheerful to watch.

People are right to call this movie amateurish but I guess you have to have a learning curve. Other reviews bag the acting, but I think the actors could have delivered acceptable performances if the script and the direction were better, and they needed to be way better! The pace is glacial, and apart from a few touches, the points are delivered with a very heavy hand. The aliens are predictably pompous and the military general stereotypically hawkish and egotistical. I thought the President had a very "lite" presence - I'm sure she/he would allow disagreement in meetings but I'm equally sure that grandstanding and displays of ego are stamped on briskly if only to save the president's time. While I'm pleased to see women in the parts of national leaders and senior advisors, I would think that women of such seniority would take care not to have long hair draggling round their faces. And the woman major had a comically badly-fitting uniform! These foolish things remind us that it's a sub-professional film. The makers of the film were in sore need of better advice, to make more of what is in itself not a bad story.