dougandwin

I really looked forward to seeing this Movie as it has had numerous good reviews, and nominations for Awards. It did prove a disappointment to me, in that the "humorous" bits mainly turned out to be unfunny, and the slapstick situations had me looking for Inspector Clouseau to appear. The photography was excellent, and a joy to look at. Unfortunately, the most enjoyment I had was looking for the stars as they appeared in cameo parts, such as Edward Norton, F. Murray Abraham and Jude Law, etc. All in all , I fail to see how it was nominated in the Best Picture Category for the Oscars, when there were a number (despite the volume of films that were nominated) that were overlooked.

Having seen this Movie again after so many years, I was still taken with the excellent production and the magnificent portrayal of Jesus Christ by Jeffrey Hunter. In the world of today, when Religion is facing so much turmoil, it was a revelation to see the sincerity of the producers in making this film. The locations were excellent, and a number of cameos by well-known stars made it great entertainment. Robert Ryan was a surprise as John, while Ron Randell, Hurd Hatfield, Viveca Lindfors were excellent. Frank Thring,in a small role as Pontius Pilate hammed it up as usual. While this movie was made before all the gimmicks of computerisation, it has been very well presented and stands up very well today. Worth a re-look.

I really looked forward to seeing this Film, and regret to say that it was a large disappointment. The story (purported to be true, but clearly over the top!) was poorly scripted, with far too much relying on clever quips, the actors tried to make this believable, but when saddled with some outrageous scenes like the one with the horse, reality went out the window. The best acting came from Cate Blanchett and Hugh Bonneville (so far from Downton Abbey), while Matt Damon

seemed to be missing in 75% of the story. It also appeared as if the Cigarette companies sponsored the Movie. There is no question that it will make money, due solely to the names of the Stars, but it certainly misses out in true entertainment and interest.

As I have always been a fan of Spencer Tracy, I thought it would be good to sit through one of his old works....big mistake! This movie has not met the test of time (as many have!), and if it were not for good old Joan Blondell, I may not have watched it all the way through. Unfortunately, as great an actress Katharine Hepburn was, this clearly was not her brightest hour. She seemed to be anxious to look after Spencer rather than act, and some of her prolonged rantings were too much. There were some good individual scenes, but they were far apart. Gig Young played his usual role of the other man competently, while it was good to see Dina Merrill in a fun mood. Not worth commenting on the story which has been done before and better.

When this film began, I feared that I was going to be disappointed...but I was so wrong. The opening sequences certainly set the tone of what was to follow. The acting and setting of the war in Afghanistan came across as 100% believable, and it brought home the bravery of Navy Seals under unimaginable conditions. I am not an American, but was so in awe of the bravery of the real people who are honored in "Lone Survivor". Mark Wahlberg grows in every movie he appears, and is brilliant, as is Taylor Kirsch as his superior officer. Good to see Eric Bana too. I must disagree with another reviewer who felt the credits at the end were not suitable - I felt they added quite brilliantly to the veracity and emotion of a very fine Movie. I fully recommend seeing it-

Despite several people telling me not to bother going to see this film as it was predictable, I went anyway and thought it was quite brilliantly done. True, it was predictable if you knew the story, but to see the re-enactment of the whole sorry situation was a very great experience. The staging was brilliant and the acting by those portraying the Somalis was an eye-opener...the scenes in the lifeboat were harrowing (maybe a bit too drawn out insofar as the film was concerned) but the movie certainly showed how Americans rightly protect their own. Tom Hanks really had to act brilliantly in the last half of the film, after a very standard sort of role in the first half. I felt it was 15 to 20 minutes too long, but also a very good film

I really thought that there was every chance I'd not like this movie, and was pleasantly surprised to find it exciting, action-packed, humorous and more than a bit convoluted. The acting was, as one would expect, brilliant with Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington having the time of their lives. The story took some following trying to figure out all the convolutions taking place with CIA and the Navy figuring prominently, but it was great fun, and the violence while never-ending was not over the top like some others today. I have to say that I felt Wahlberg stole the show with his comedic side strongly brought out. Go and see it, but do not try to figure out all the ins and outs too seriously. Great entertainment.

I had to brace myself to sit through this Film, as I had read some reviews that actually had praised it, and it was a very long two hours to endure what has to be described as one of the most sleazy movies I have yet seen. The attempts at humor mostly concerned pooping/farting/belching and vomiting, so if that is anyone's idea of a comedy then this is for you! The Wedding shop bathroom scene was the most distasteful of a bad lot, while the Airplane sequence was so unbelievable and overlong, and the other so-called "highlight" was the "hens' do" that was so badly staged and overacted that the most predictable ending could not come quick enough! I was so sad to see such a great actress as Jill Clayburgh having to lower her standards to take a role in this disaster.

Reviewing this Movie is a conundrum for me, as I found the violence which runs continually through the film quite overpowering, yet I knew full well that any Quentin Tarantino production would be just that. The cast was excellent, with Leonardo DeCaprio in a very unusual role for him,and believe me I have no criticism in that area. My problem is that the story is so far-fetched, it could have been shortened by some 30 minutes or so, and not suffered. The production was brilliantly mounted and the color quite spectacular, and I know critics world-wide have hailed it as great. I must say that it is a film that will shock and appall many film-goers, but a greater majority will love it.

There is no doubt that this Film was brilliantly put together both in Direction and Star Quality. When you put together Henry Fonda, Richard Widmark and Anthony Quinn, you know you are in for a treat. The story is quite superb and a far cry from many of the Westerns being churned out in the Fifties. As the Marshal who is quite dangerous, in his own way, Fonda is really the star around which so much resolves. Widmark as a reformed outlaw turned Deputy Sheriff plays his role to perfection, while Anthony Quinn as the crippled close friend of the Marshal is integral to the final outcome. They are greatly supported by a well-worn Dorothy Malone, and to me at least a surprising good performance by Tom Drake as the cruel and somewhat cowardly leader of the Outlaws. It is one of the last Cinemascope big movies by Fox, and the photography and atmosphere are quite spectacular.

Let me say at first that I am a great fan of Jimmy Cagney and have really liked most of his movies, particularly "White Heat", "Yankee Doodle Dandy" as well as most of those crime movies he made over the years for Warner Brothers. However seeing The Oklahoma Kid again after several years, he somehow does not fit the role of a cowboy. The story is quite okay, and the cast is impressive with people like Donald Crisp and Ward Bond, while Humphrey Bogart was a scream as the baddie, and Rosemary Lane just had to look pretty - which she did. You could see the very many instances of stand-ins doing the stunts and riding. The highlights for me were Jimmy dancing and even singing in-between his killing half the people of Tombstone. It was fairly short which helped a lot!

Clearly, I am at odds with a number of reviewers as I loved this movie, with all its twists and turns (some predictable) and with some very great actors. Mark Wahlberg, who is growing in strength with every film, has the lead and does not put a foot wrong, Russell Crowe has a great time as the crooked Mayor, Catherine Zeta Jones in a smaller role looks absolutely gorgeous, while the supporting cast are excellent. One needs to pay very close attention to understand exactly what is happening, but it is always enthralling and fast-moving. There is a great car chase that is in keeping with all the other action this movie provides, with the last 15 minutes extremely suspenseful. Go see it, as it really needs the big screen to do it justice.

This movie is dependent solely on the great acting of some great aging stars. The story is very predictable, and is set in glorious English surroundings, with every member of the cast contributing quite brilliantly. When Maggie Smith arrives on the scene, the tension at the Musician's Home goes up to exploding point, and it is then we see the true acting capabilities of Billy Connelly, Tom Courtenay and Pauline Collins. They are all brilliant and they lift the quality of the story. There is a downside to all this, as people who have seen it told me that the main thing they got out of it was quite depressing, as they have to face up to the aging we all face.

I have read most of the previous reviews of "Skyfall", and it makes one realize just how wide are our preferences where Movies are concerned. I felt this is the best Bond movie in a long time, being full of fast-moving (at times impossible) action, and was pleased to see the wonderful Judi Dench as "M" having a much bigger role than usual, and Daniel Craig doing a great job as Bond, though I do think he is starting to show his age and that will be of concern to the producers. The settings like Shanghai were absolutely wonderful, as was the strong finale in beautiful Scotland. Plaudits go to Xavier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes and the newcomer who played "Q". In a nutshell, it was great fun.

This has all the trappings of a Travelogue through Africa while selling a very interesting version of Rider Haggard's novel. Sure they have changed so much from the Book, that to compare the two is a bit of a waste of time, for example no woman in the novel to one playing a major part in the Movie - so what? The story takes a long time to develop while I am sure just about every kind of African animal is shown along the way, but all the time there is great interest in what is happening. The cast is very good with Granger and Kerr leading, and Richard Carlson is a welcome addition, but in my opinion the stars of the film (other that the animals) are the leading African tribesmen, and the Watussi scenes are very memorable. This film is well worth seeing, and ignore the obvious impossibilities in the script and enjoy the grandeur of such a fascinating country.

142 minutes of some of the most bizarre scenes and storyline was asking a bit to much of the viewer. We all know Paul Newman hated this and told everyone so, and I have to say it is justified criticism, and feel the musical score was far too classy for the Movie. However, it is easy to be over-critical , and not give any credits that are due, so I'll start by saying Newman was actually very good at handling some of the worst dialogue ever concocted and was far from the worst in it. Save that for Virginia Mayo who looked as if she had wandered onto the set by mistake. Jack Palance had a ball, giving the most over-the-top acting seen for years,; but at least he kept one awake. Pier Angeli was very pretty, but very wooden; while Lorne Greene seemed in a hurry to get back to the Ponderosa. Had it been cut by at least 30 minutes, and that would have been easy, as many scenes were unnecessary, it would have been a heck of a lot more endurable.

First of all, it must be said that Ben Afflect has re-created (and added a bit of fantasy) a situation that gripped the world. He has done this with real imagination, great sets, brilliant acting and an atmosphere that catches all viewers without any slow or boring spots. To add to this , his acting performance as Mendez in first-rate. When doing a review it is usually fashionable to find fault (even to the extent of childish nit-picking), but that is not possible with this truly exciting story of an attempt to rescue American Embassy officials from Iran. Afflect's direction is firm and controlled, and his Movie must be a contender at the Oscars for Best Picture. Do not miss this one!

Claiming to be a true story is a bit too much. but that aside it is a film that does grip...but not entertain, due to the unbridled violence that runs for two hours without let-up. Outstanding in the cast is Guy Pearce (goes from strength to strength in the acting stakes), and Tom Hardy (who sounds like Paul Newman a hell of a lot). There are some scenes that could well have been edited out due to their content, but the scenery is superb, and quite surprisingly the music fits the mood very well. I found the lead LeBoeuf to be struggling in a part that required greater ability, and the addition of Gary Oldman had to be to give star value, but frankly he is wasted. The final scenes beg more questions than answers, and I have to say Forrest must have had the constitution of 10 men. Frankly, it could have been better with a few better actors to do the leads justice (Hardy and Pearce excepted)

A true British film starring some real talent who know how to perform in the very best professional way, but they were secondary to the major star- Jaipur, India! What a fascinating locale and I longed to see eve n more of it. The locals who played integral roles to the story were highlights, with Jay Patel as the Manager of the Hotel brilliant. Among my favorites of the Hotel guests were the incomparable Maggie Smith and Judi Dench, with a superb performance by Bill Nighy. In truth, the story line was a little weak in parts, but it would be nit-picking to let this interfere with anyone's enjoyment. Sure the Movie is aimed straight at the heart of Golden Oldies and hits the target, but I believe true thinking younger adults will be absorbed.

Having just seen "Ivanhoe" after many years, I was still thrilled to see the beautiful photography, and the beautiful Elizabeth Taylor. Actually I enjoyed the story (very different from the Book) and thought Robert Taylor was very good in the title role, and Guy Rolfe as Prince John hammed his way magnificently. The old stagers In Finlay Currie and Felix Aylmer showed how real professionals do it, while George Sanders played a role he has done many times. My big disappointment was Joan Fontaine who seemed cold and distant in a role that her sister would have handled much better (her Maid Marian in "Robin Hood" shows that clearly). The colour was vibrant and the action good, and I am lost trying to describe Emlyn William's effort

Have just seen "Dragonwyck" after it had been released 66 years ago, and I found it to be absorbing, brilliantly acted and photographed. Gene Tierney stars as the simple farm girl who is elevated to Lady of the Manor for reasons that she did not comprehend, Vincent Price was superb as the master of Dragonwyck, while those two wonderful people, Walter Huston and Anne Revere, as usual, brilliant. The story by Anya Seton is well-handled, but that is where the frustration comes in-too many people in key roles just disappear from the film without any explanation, e.g. the Master's Daughter, The Housekeeper, the crippled maid,etc. It certainly gives the distinct impression that quite a bit of cutting has been done prior to release, as their part in the story was integral to the plot.

I know I am in the minority, but I have just come out of seeing this Film, and , not having read the book, I am completely confused as it jumped from scene to scene introducing numerous new characters, who then disappeared and no real explanation of why the things that happen do happen. The acting is excellent, but one feels if this how MI6 operated during the Cold War, it is wonder that more serious events did not occur. The photography is good, even though most of the buildings, inside and out, were drab, dirty and colorless. A number of relationships were hinted at, but not pursued causing more confusion. Gary Oldman was excellent in a demanding role, and he and his assistant, Peter, were the redeeming features in an overlong, dreary and confusing movie.

Seeing this movie again after several years, really showed me what a lovely uncomplicated experience it was. Kevin Bacon and Elizabeth McGovern were perfect choices for the roles of new Husband and Wife, not helped at all by the treacherous Alec Baldwin. The story was interesting all the way through to the very end, and we had fun, pathos and love all wrapped into 90 minutes or so, but I felt Kevin Bacon carried the film, and showed even in those early days of his career the great potential that eventually became real in his "Mystic River" performance, as well as others like "The River Wild", etc. I cannot understand why it did not do much better at the Box Office.

I know this is going to offend a lot of fans, but "Weekend in Havana" does not come anywhere near "Down Argentine Way" or "That Night in Rio" both of which were made around the same time. Certainly, Carmen Miranda (the main attraction of the movie) has more to do in this, bus the talent of Alice Faye is wasted, and I felt it needed someone like Charlotte Greenwood to really lift the tempo and interest. No need to recap the story as it is one that has been done before many times, but I do give full marks for the Technicolor which was absolutely brilliant (in more ways than one!). John Payne and Caesar Romero were adequate, and it was good fortune to have some of the standard actors in Leonid Kinsky, Billy Gilbert and Sheldon Leonard to help move it along.

Some 60 years ago I first saw this Movie, and now seeing it again on TCM I must say it is a beautiful tribute to two wonderful stars in Deanna Durbin and Charles Laughton - a great idea at the time, and one which would have seemed ludicrous when first mooted. They play off each other beautifully, and it seems everyone else in it are a bit superfluous. My only complaint is Deanna never finished her version of "Going Home" which was extremely moving. The story does not really matter, but it is light and a bit of fun. If you do have time for the supporting cast, Robert Cummings is fine, Walter Catlett is good in what was probably one of his bigger roles, and everyone seems to be comfortable in their support. Old fashioned? Yes, but incomparable with anything of this genre today. A true really feel good experience.