The premise of a successful writer being a modern Sherlock Holmes is trite, but here it's done with a purpose, if you give it a chance. One could go into this murder mystery with the idea that it is going to be the usual Jessica Fletcher/Perry Mason/Sleuth/ or whichever over blown non credible demi god one usually gets, or one can go into this film with an open mind. Go into it with an open mind, and if you're like me, you'll figure out who the killer is fairly early on. The clues are sort of "background clues", and for people who have been in theater, the whole thing becomes quite clear at about the time the actors begin to attempt stage exits, so to speak. One of the better murder mysteries by far, in almost every respect.
Actor William Pullman plays what at first looks like an opportunist named Alex, in the old West, who decides to deliver mail for fees.
He quickly shows he is a human monster, charging fees that would be worse than outrageous even by standards of 150 years later.
It's a ridiculous story as told, because the prices he charges the miners is so high that there is no miner who would possibly decide not to do the business himself. '
Eventually, another man does come by and rivals the business of Alex. Pullman plays it as though he's nonchalant, but that's ridiculous for a human monster. In fact, if this really was a true story as these stories are supposed to be, then the reality would be that Pullman was using strong arm tactics and had a mob helping him.
This story is too obviously contrived to make :Pullman look like something else, but it gives itself away.
Clint Eastwood has a strong role here as a man who doesn't use the mail service, and has no money. The story indicates that Pullman has pity on him, but even if this was true, it would be "crocodile tear pity". Believing that Pullman was anything but a monster is something no savvy person could ever swallow.
This is one of the poorest and most contrived episodes of an otherwise good TV anthology series.
This sci-fi movie about saving the world from asteroid impact does it by sending a team of what one would call "craftsmen" in a certain specialty, this specialty is to An asteroid the size of a city use drilling techniques to break apart a large asteroid.
The asteroid is said to be the size of Texas, which is overkill. The writing is terrible.
The trouble is that idiots were judging writers long ago, and giving the "okay" to those who were not threats, while immediately ousting actual competition. That's the American way of the 1970-present day era. No wonder dialog has gone downhill.
As has empathy. There's really no way to empathize with the characters, particularly the Superman character played by Afleck, and yet we are to believe he has vulnerability when he has never had a rough minute in his life? to the extent most movies do effects. Just slightly abused. There is at least a ridiculous "movie logic" and time frame to follow.
I'm quite sure the reason for making the characters and dialog so poor is to cover up the stupidity and contrivance of the plot. And the lack of romance in the relationship with the daughter and Afleck. A total zero in inspiration with the love interests, which is sad, considering how physically beautiful the daughter is.
The effects are well done, not abused. It is watchable. And the woman who plays Bruce's daughter is super hot to look at. It's just depressing that she is in a relationship that has absolutely no romance.
Uninspired and predictable, the opposite of most Hitchcock
This episode of Hitchcock is one of his few supernatural stories.
That's usually a good idea, because when you only go "supernatural" one time in ten, then it works.
However, this one is sorely predictable because of the contrived way it caters to family men. In fact, it looks totally contrived by a writer who wants to act like being a father is the only existence on Earth. The writing is so narcissistic that you would feel embarrassed for the writer if he wasn't so self righteous.
There isn't one bit of originality in this. Nothing wrong with the acting. And that makes it even worse, that so much effort was wasted on this garbage.
I still remember this mild science fiction comedy after many years.
It's very "average". It's a likable enough comedy, and very basic.
But it couldn't have taken long to write, direct, put together. In fact, it should have just been done without any budget at all. And I don't think they did use a big budget. Not any special effects except for the sake of making fun of special effects, and that was a good idea.
This isn't much, but it isn't bad either. It's just a bit of fun.
This monster shark movie has some decent things in it. The comic relief is pretty good, and the characters are good enough, even though the acting is horrendous.
The production and directing is horrendous. When every single actor and actress is guilty of being incoherent in line delivery, one has to blame the director for instructions. The actors give lines at about 30 words a half second. Even if you could understand a single word, you can't help but know that it would be impossible for the other characters to comprehend and process the information given in the lines. Poor acting, poor directing.
It doesn't stop there. The special effects are overkill, making it another dull "arcade game looking movie".
The story itself is okay, if one can follow it. The characters are likable enough. The comic relief saves it from being a disaster.
This comes across as a "kid's movie" more than an "adult idea of a kid movie", dealing with two kids on a dinosaur island, as you might guess from the title.
That's about the only saving grace. It's very dull to adults. I'm not sure a kid would be entertained by it. Possibly. It isn't a terrible movie. It's just kind of a formula movie. It's harmless enough. As a Monty Python character would say, "it's silly".
It isn't "annoying", and that may be the main thing. You can have it on and do your chores, work out, whatever, and it won't bother you.
This post apocalyptic story of a single person living life alone on Earth, has the earmarks of being fairly inspired. There is some good to this, and some bad.
First, the bad, which brings the movie way down, is the poor sound quality. You can't understand a word without closed caption. It can't be done.
That said, we plod along through this story, which is "style over substance" so to speak, as we get the style of quiet depression, and that's fair enough. We're dealing with a sole survivor all alone, in this case a woman for a change, which is something Hollywood has hated to do.
This movie does dare a little bit, although there are some formula traits. The woman being the last person on Earth is fresh. In almost every such movie, it's always a "married man". Can't be a bachelor, or a woman. Has to be a married man, so this movie does dare to break the Hollywood formula big time.
There is the "corporate greed" formula, which would be fair to show, except it's very trite. Perhaps in twenty years that won't be so overdone, and the production team members obviously think so.
The low budget look gives the impression of the production team deciding on location even before some of the dialog is written. The flashback settings are very dull, and the apocalyptic settings are actually more interesting. Yet our heroine seems to miss the dullness of the people. That's another weakness, the motivation. The dialog is not nearly as bad as most modern TV and movie dialog, but it's not supreme.
This should have been better. Better sound alone would help. And perhaps making the characters somewhat more motivated.
Hitchcock is one of the giants, but when you do as many movies and TV shows as he did, some will be very poor.
This one is a soap opera sort of story, set in a house, with an upscale married couple. The wife's lover and a strange man reading a meter come later.
The man is a vintage cuckold played by George Kennedy. The wife is a sinister, hateful, but very shapely witch. The lover is really just a walk on character that isn't explored. The strange man who comes later is a diabolical monster.
The main trouble with this story is the script. The characters have no credible motivation. In fact, only the walk on lover comes across with any credibility, and that's only because the writer didn't have him in the story long enough to warp his character.
Oddball characters can be funny, but this story isn't funny. Two of the three characters who are developed are absolute monsters, and the third is not as developed as those two. Otherwise, one gets the feeling the writer would also make him a monster. It's just too lacking in character credibility. We get "fake" motivation for the two monsters. Motivation that is not really "motivation", but instead "excuses" for sadistic evil. We never believe the given motivation for the hatefulness of the characters.
This is a Western semi action semi drama about a woman who was kidnapped by a very hostile Indian chief.
Barbara Stanwyck is reunited in this movie with Joel McCrea. They were two of the giants in the movie star business. In the classic UNION PACIFIC they played two characters who were larger than life, but credible in incredible circumstances.
Here, it is the opposite. They play two lower than life characters who aren't credible.
Barbara plays a woman whose self righteousness knows no bounds. On one hand, she is a married woman who was kidnapped and forced to have a son with a criminal. Upon her rescue, she insists on forcing the son upon her husband instead of letting the husband take care of the son.
Naturally, this is going to cause some people to get killed, but she never feels a bit of remorse for that.
Joel plays a cavalry NCO who escorts her back to her husband. For some reason, he played him totally "in control". Anyone who appears that much in control all the time is out of control.
The writing is simply terrible. You can tell by the way that only the major characters are treated with any dignity. The more minor a character is, the more "cannon fodder" he is made to be in the writer's theme. And it really sticks out when the writer and director try to make it look more character oriented.
Not to say it is terrible. There are good parts, but what truly ruins it is the self righteousness of the heroine, and the poor writing and predictable treatment of the minor characters.
This is an amazing film about what it truly means to be "unfit for command". His "unit for command" character volunteers to lead a demolition team of 7 other men in war torn, famine torn China during World War II, in an attempt to slow down the advance of the Japanese.
And it is of the utmost relevance now in 2020, and has been for at least 40 years.
James Stewart plays a man much younger than the actor himself, and you can tell, by the very ignorance and self righteousness of the character he plays. The supporting cast is as excellent as Stewart is. The most recognizable ones are Morgan, Best, and Corbett. Morgan and Best are best known as fairly macho character actors, and Corbett as a potential leading man. Here, Corbett is the interpreter for Stewart. Accompanying the team are a Chinese colonel and the wife of a general who are on their way to the final destination. Fortunately, the colonel also has some soldiers helping.
Stewart does a remarkable job in playing what can only be called a villain. There are many examples of actors portraying villains so realistically that they snake oil their way into making naïve people think their motivations aren't pure evil. Heflin in "Gunman's Walk", Eastwood in many Westerns, March in "Hombre", and others. Sometimes, these human monsters are misinterpreted by naïve viewers as actually being "heroes", but there is no way that they are.
The major (Stewart) makes about every wrong decision a man can make, and it is obvious to any educated person. His college education only helps him to be a human monster. The major does a good job of seeming to care, but he doesn't, or he wouldn't squander human lives the way he does, nor fail to foresee problems that anyone with his educated would foresee, even in 1944.
Sure, there could be some failure to understand Chinese culture, but the fact is that the major is "totally out of control to demons inside" and is "unfit for command". That, in essence, is the film. And it is portrayed with excellence. It should be rated "R" for mature audiences, because only mature viewers can understand what it truly means.
There are lessons here. America, certainly for the past 40 or 50 years, has had too many people in authority, and too many voters, and too many jury members, who reward "unfit for command" personality and character. Too many Americans "blame the victim, never the criminal". That is what Western culture deteriorated into.
The film also shows the need for Western culture to go back to respected elders, people with experience and savvy, over the young "unfit for command", "upwardly mobile" "mob family member" sorts who are so loved by the ignorant masses, be they theists, atheists, materialists, karma lovers, whatever they are, the connecting link is "arrogance", in believing that some people are demigods, and some are cannon fodder.
It is because of this belief and arrogance that certain leaders in the U.S. are in the position they are in, and that means both Republicans and Democrats.
This film gives a clear picture of that. It should not be misunderstood as a film that sanctions or excuses or pardons the major, nor as one that actually gives him any natural motivation, but as one that clearly depicts his actions as being out of control to demonic forces (or, if you're a materialist, to chemical forces). And the need to keep such human monsters from being in positions of stewardship.
This kidnapping movie about one couple against an experienced and resourceful gang is one about "mistakes".
Kurt Russell is the central character here, and the one from whom we see the mistakes.
Now, kidnapping is not always this extreme, but it is much more common than the authorities let on, because most kidnapping is on lower scale, and most kidnapping is trial and error from demon possessed humans.
This movie does do the service of showing common mistakes.
Most of the early mishaps are explained as mistakes, but really aren't. Lifting up a car hood is something every car owner eventually has to do, and sometimes circumstances dictate leaving it up attended for a minute. That's the real world.
Also, not knowing who to trust, when one has to place trust in someone, that is not a "mistake", but just a mishap.
The mistakes in this kidnapping story come later. Some of them are still just mishaps, some are mistakes done in the split second decision making, some in panic, but there are a few glaring mistakes that only the most naive fool would make.
I don't think it is a spoiler to say one such glaring mistake that no one who has ever been on the street would make, is the decision to actually play along with kidnappers and give them the money in person, when they have not only let you see their faces, but seen them often and with their vehicles. You know they have no intention of letting you or the kidnapped person survive. And Russell's character is not in a split second decision on this. It's something that no person would do.
But the explanation for these impossible mistakes is that Russell's character is a spoiled rich guy who lives in a protected bubble world. And so we do sympathize with him, and empathize with him, against a gang of sadistic monsters.
A few other glaring mistakes that no streetwise person would make, such as not taking out the most agile, youngest, spriest sadist immediately, even before any talk. True, it's tough to actually pull a trigger on a person when you have never done it, and even if you have done it, but in this case, it's obviously necessary. That's because in this case the antihero (due to his naive nature, we can call him an antihero) has already been shown numerous times that these are sadistic monsters who are playing for keeps, and will not be reasonable, nor will they negotiate. The pulling of the trigger is no longer in doubt.
I don't believe these points are spoilers.
So, there are some points to this movie, which makes it a valid 7/10
This is a semi Western, and a bit too spaghetti style.
That sums this movie up pretty well. Like all spaghetti Westerns, it's very bland, depressing, trite, and full of one dimensional characters that we could care less about.
It's best to understand what "spaghetti" is. It is actually the most stereotypical of traditional Hollywood and traditional Greek propaganda. The characters are all based on Homeric brown nosing of the elite, to keep the plebes in their places. Characters are categorized into gods, demigods, quarter gods, sometimes 1/8 gods, down to "cannon fodder" .
This has always been a mob mentality to keep those outside the mob family from thinking they have a chance to challenge the king or other nobility.
Here, the only half way likable character is a member of Japanese nobility, so that's thinly disguised, but still traditional Hollywood and Greek mob mentality.
It gets as high as a three rating because there is a bit of humor to keep us awake, but it's still dull. Not as dull as the pathetic Westerns of Leone, but still impossible to stay awake through in one sitting.
This is a very ridiculous, highly contrived revenge story.
The second scene (with Sally Field in the car on her cell phone with her doomed daughter) is what is known in the writing world as "expository".
Making it even more predictable, more contrived, less suspenseful, certainly more depressing to young male viewers, is the writing. Amanda Silver has shown a clear hatred for brunettes in the undeniably Nazi propaganda movie Jurassic World, which was obviously just a vehicle to praise Hitler and Eva and their unnatural genocidal ideology. Silver has help with other modern day Nazi ideologists in their decision to simply preach for the elimination of women with dark hair. That's unmistakable, and unmistakably the only reason they wrote the screenplay.
Some of these new age Nazi ideologists are simply victims of the relentless preaching of Hollywood and European Nazi worshipers from the later sixties, seventies, and eighties. The new generation people are hammered with this from day one, unlike earlier generations that didn't grow up on movies and TV. It's unfortunate that they are battered with this propaganda as early as age one. They have a totally unnatural view of what they would even consider natural.
The writing has no assets throughout the piece, except for at least a decent ending. It's too bad actors and actresses played out their roles as well as they did, because this was about as expository a screenplay as one could come up with.
Unique story, lead characters done well, others not
This war film combines some comedy with drama with pathos with a crime caper.
It is unique. Kelly (Eastwood) is a busted lieutenant, who is now under Joe (Savalas) in a squad of GIs in WWII in the European theater. They have survived the D Day beach massacre, and are one of the more persecuted units in their company.
They combine with Oddball (Sutherland) and others to steal Gold from a bank in occupied territory that is about to be abandoned. Roughly $18,000,000 in Gold bars is for grabs.
The strength of the movie is the relationship of the lead characters, the "Beatle" characters so to speak. When two men get together, one is "John", and one is "Paul", and when three get together, another is "George", who is clearly the spiritual tank commander Oddball. The "Ringo" is a combination of other GIs, most notably the ones played by Gavin McLeod of Mary Tyler Moore fame, and Alien victim Harry Dean Stanton.
Which is John and which is Paul? John is usually seen as loud and boisterous, and Paul as quiet, but that is misleading. John is also the more reckless, more risk taking, less caring, more snobbish, more mercantile one, while Paul is the one who is more likely to keep everyone safe.
That makes Kelly the "John" figure and Savalas a total change of his usual character as the more rational "Paul" figure.
In fact, even though Oddball comes across as kooky, even he is saner than Kelly. Both he and Joe are more rational, more strategic, more open minded, than Kelly.
Kelly isn't a sadist, though. There is no such thing as a psychopath. That is a concoction of Psychiatrists in what is presently the darkest age of mental health. Mental health professionals need a safety zone in their dark age belief that there is no evil, so they wrongly state that some people don't feel empathy with others. Anyone from the hood knows different. Some are mercantile souls who have a goal and then try to obtain the goal, hoping no one is hurt, but living with it. Others are sadists whose first goal is actually causing suffering of others, and then pretend to have a goal of greed or envy in order to accomplish that goal. In either case, both do know that people in pain are in pain.
Kelly is the mercantile soul. He has a goal of taking Gold, and is willing to share it. He doesn't want others to suffer, but he's willing to kill hundreds of German soldiers to get it, because he simply figures he's going to kill enemy soldiers any way, so why not get something for it?
Carroll O'Conner provides the best comedy of the movie as a general who is out of touch with the troops.
The movie does have weaknesses. The weaknesses boil down mostly to one: dehumanization of the supporting characters. Aside from the "Beatle" characters, few characters are treated with any dignity, and most are caricatures, particularly a stereotypical crud played by Don Rickles.
The GIs are totally invulnerable, and bullets find very few of them, even though they never miss German targets. While German soldiers have always been the biggest whipping post of Hollywood, this is one of the worst cases of dehumanization. Hollywood even treats American Indians with more dignity, as they are always treated with respect in cavalry films, and lose mostly because they have spears and arrows against repeating rifles. German soldiers are certainly the whipping post boys of Hollywood.
Here, the kill count is even more ridiculous than "The Dirty Dozen", if you can believe that is possible.
While the movie seems to poke fun at characters, it never pokes fun at itself, and tries to come off as credible, which it isn't. The best movies are good because of credible supporting characters. This one lacks that for the most part, as most are clowns meant for cannon fodder, and totally "contrived" in "contrived" circumstances.
However, the movie is very watchable. It is well directed and filmed, with a logical sequence of events, and no lulls. There is bit of pathos, most notably in the mine field. There are some good elements, and it's basically a likable movie if one concentrates on the three lead characters alone. However, it isn't likable if one looks at how the supporting characters are so contrived.
This is a semi classic science fiction tale of a group of people surviving the apocalypse, in this case a nuclear one.
This is from the same script as DAY THE WORLD ENDED. The differences make this a bit of an improvement, which is rare for what people think of as "remakes", although it's unfair to call this a remake, because one doesn't know how long it had been planned in the director's goals.
It's quite undeniably the best of the "survive the nuclear holocaust movies", due a script that makes the focus more on the seven characters than on the absurdity on assuming no one else in the world survived.
Here, the characters don't know if there are other survivors, but make plans for the future either way.
As usual, it is the supporting characters that make a movie great. We have four central characters in the hero, heroine, villain, and master of the house. It is the other three who make or break the movie.
Two of the three are essentially the same as the other movie. However, the "semi mutant" character is given a better look here, as it's more personal. He is the hero's brother, so it is more of an emotional issue. As in the original, he's also the most interesting character.
What also makes this better is that three of the four leads (all but the villain) downplay their roles to the extent that the minor characters are seen more vividly. This is done on purpose, not from bad acting. It's intentional, in order to provide more empathy for all the characters. The lead actors know they will get empathy.
The villain is over the top, as in the other movie, and is the weakest part of the script. The other six characters are all very credible.
Catchy, upbeat theme song only thing of value here
The theme song for this is catchy and musically top notch, which alone makes this worth more than 2/10.
Other than that, it's a dull series apparently about three perfect men and three perfect women, which the writers are quite inept at making look imperfect.
They're also incredibly dull, and impossible to relate to.
It is one of those series that is impossible for a non drug abuser to stay awake through for more than 45 seconds. So, it could be a good Insomnia cure, but more than likely will just irritate you if you try to watch it.
The situations and relationships are impossible to relate to.
This is a very ordinary Hollywood film noire story about the usual stud crooked hero turned to good because a good dies. In this case the stud is a cop.
Our favorite prosecuting attorney (William Talman) is an evil villain in this movie, and Gig Young is the stud cop. These two are the Hollywood elements, and bring the movie down.
However, it's saved by the other characters.
Like most good movies, it is the supporting characters that make this a good movie. A mystic police partner played by one of the most famous of supporting actors, a few other good cops, an actor who plays a robotic man in a window, a big shot gangster, the gangster doll, a caring heroine, and a young naive soul whose character may have inspired a famous Hollies song.
Those characters make the movie less Hollywood, and worth the watching.
As I write this in 2020 A.D., I would estimate over 85% of the people are familiar with the character of Sheldon, who provides most of the comedy in the series this is an offshoot from.
However, I don't know if this will be the case in 30 years, if humanity still cares.
So, Sheldon is an infinitely intelligent "nerd" who lives in his own world. This series explains his youth and his family life.
It is much like THE WONDER YEARS, an extraordinary series made a few decades earlier, about a more normal boy's childhood and family. However, since Sheldon is an extreme comic character, this series is more bent to comedy.
However, the more normal members of the family have some good "family comedy-drama" issues, and it is a good show. It entertains and helps one relax. That makes this a positive series and I give a thumbs up.
It's too bad this "play detective" series was set up to be self righteous and vindictive, because it should have been much better.
The stories are told in such a way that the director deliberately tries to trick the viewer with misinformation, then smugly asks questions which are impossible to answer from the misinformation and lack of information given.
This can only be intended to make smart people feel stupid and stupid people feel smart, in order to rationalize the low IQ level of the upwardly mobile police detective. Anyone who comes from the hood knows that street cops are infinitely smarter than the detectives who are trained to just accuse anyone they feel they can frame for a crime.
This series only serves to illustrate that very point.
This is one of the most predictable movies you will ever see, except for the last 20 minutes or so, which is quite satisfying.
It's a "suspense" film, and the overall story is good, but the writing is horribly inept, as the viewer is relentlessly put to sleep by the tedious dialog.
It's obviously made for two types of spectators. In the movie theater, it's made for the crack head or meth head, or some abuser of drugs, because only someone on serious drugs could stay awake through this ordeal. If one can stay awake, one is rewarded by a decent non-Hollywood ending. This means the ending is meant for the people who don't abuse drugs, but the rest of the movie is meant for the "haters" who do abuse drugs.
In the home viewing, it is meant for "groups of three or more", where two people chat while one keeps up with the story and tells the others, until that one is too bored to go on, then a relay goes into place for the group. This is not uncommon in group viewing, and movie makers know this.
However, it makes for a mediocre movie.
If the dialog was better, if the writing was better, if the movie would be about an hour shorter, it would be a very good movie. The characters are well drawn enough, although the "bad guys" are totally Hollywood caricatures. The "non-bad" characters are three dimensional, however.
Not to say it was a bad movie. Just that it is impossible for a non-drug abuser to sit through this in one entire viewing, so you would be advised to switch to another station for ten minutes or so, about three times in the beginning of the movie, then back, in order to be satisfied. You'll get the picture, and you'll predict exactly what the lead character is up to, withing the first 15 minutes of the movie, in terms of the "money crime", and you'll gather enough to realize what he's up in the "morality crime" soon enough, since that drones on and on throughout the movie.
At one time, everyone knew the story of Scrooge, a superb piece of fiction written by Dickens about a miser who is visited by three ghosts one night.
However, I'm finding that modern snobs, Generation X in particular, pride themselves of the arrogance of ignorance of classic stories, so many don't know the tale, and refuse to hear it.
So, we got much kowtowing to "Ignorance and Arrogance", which has bred more and more poor writing in the guild of writers.
Here, we get an example of "expository" writing. Also "forced, contrived" writing. And most of all, the epitome of "preachy writing".
This movie is one of the longest sermons ever made..
The writers should be embarrassed, but Generation X and some of Y, and those who preach Generation X "Arrogance of Ignorance" like the unnatural Beavis and Butthead approach.
This movie separates the fake nonconformist from the real one, the pretentious attempt at credibility from actual realism, the traditional Greek demigod from the anti hero. This movie fails on these levels, and it's obvious the writers struggled to maintain these levels, which is why they should be embarrassed.
I have no problem with the acting. The actors and actresses worked with what they had, which was pompous stupidity. The dialog is incredibly "expository" and not a bit natural. This not only doesn't look or sound natural for the 19th century, it doesn't even work for the 21st century. Of course, with all the preaching these modern day hack writers do, they certainly are doing their best to make "fake sounding dialog" become the new norm. There are plenty of dorks who enjoy being led around by whatever they believe is the "new dialog".
The reviews so far number over 300, and they are telling. I am nowhere near the first to point out the weak writing. Many have shown their objective ability to critique this movie. And many have shown themselves to just be naive at best.
I hope the actors and actresses lamented their work on this project. Being pros, they did their job. It was a waste of their abilities. Like much of what grew after about 1965 in Hollywood, it is "non-credible characters in credible surroundings", the worst of both worlds. It only heightens the pathetic lack of natural characters when one places them in a natural looking setting. Only a generation that prides itself on being Al Bundy, Peg Bundy, Beavis, and Butthead can eat this up.
Predictable Hollywood Nazi worship meshed with incoherent garble
Lucas goes all out with Hitler worship in this totally Hollywood mess.
It was meant to be part of the Star Wars Universe of science fiction, but it lacks any imagination, is void of strategy, and has zero inspiration, unless you're a devout Nazi.
First of all, it's just incoherent garble. We're just fed images, all of which are based on the ideology of Hitler and his mistress. The entire story is contrived to kill as many dark haired, dark eyed, dark skinned beautiful women as possible. In complete adherence to the overwhelming Hollywood majority of Nazi propaganda providers, Lucas gives us the most predictable mess he could.
That's pretty much all he does in this movie. And it's so contrived, he can't possibly feel good about it. He truly is out to make the women happy with this one.
There's no plot, no character. The best thing is the snow foxes, but that's not enough, and in fact, it's a waste to have any good visuals in this hate mongering, demon worshiping, divisive, and totally depressing junk (at least depressing to any young heterosexual male).
This is a bit of a suspense/mystery movie about a young girl who sees visions which give her the impression she is in great peril.
It's very "over the top" and completely formula. There is absolutely no inspiration in the writing, which is typical Hollywood mechanics.
A shame the talents of very good actors and actresses is wasted here. The director seems most interested in portraying the physical beauty of characters and scenery, but all that is wasted on a bland script, which makes it even worse. One can forgive a bland script if no energy, talent, or expenditure is "wasted" for it, but one can't forgive the massive abuse of resources that we have here.
Again, we see the result of "hate" critics from the sixties and seventies furthering the careers of poor writers and directors, which made for the obvious scenario of the hacks being the "judges" of the next batch of writers and directors, deliberately throwing out the more inspired writers first. We see the results all too often, and it shows here.