Change Your Image
jglillis-1
Reviews
Ride the High Country (1962)
Why such great reviews?
Lots of favorable reviews for this one but I don't fully understand why. Scott and McCrea are their usual wooden selves, the music was low average at best, and the female lead was not exactly riveting. Hard to see why the youngster was along except to put the moves on the girl. The Hammond brothers were classic slimy low-lifes. The plot swerved from the beginning, when the banker was worried because six men had been killed trying to bring gold out, to the end, when the Hammonds provided the only opposition, and they weren't after the gold, but the girl. The movie was supposedly set around 1890-1900, but the only coin shown was a dime first minted in 1916. Nice scenery, though.
Downton Abbey: Christmas Special (2015)
Happy endings all round, but should they have been?
All sorts of happy endings for everyone, almost too many. Denker deserved far worse than she got, as did Barrow. He created too much pain for so many people over the years for him to come out smelling like a rose and be rewarded by succeeding Carson as butler.
For me, Mary was always a tiresome character - petty and self-centered, languid, and oh so superior. My wife said she's beautiful. I didn't think so, either her person or her character (her soul, if you will). She didn't deserve a happy marriage and another kid - after all, she ignored the first one from the time she had him! I also must admit that Cora's simper got a little tiresome over six years, as did her annoying habit of turning her face 30 degrees to the left of the person she was speaking to. But she "manned up" at the right time several times.
The series displayed considerable courage in two respects: 1. The only gay character (Thomas Barrow) was absolutely despicable until near the very end, and 2. the head aristocrat (Robert) was a decent sort. Not politically correct at all, and the show's to be congratulated.
The Princess Bride (1987)
Unremittingly silly.
Let's face it. Rob Reiner is not Mel Brooks. (Perhaps both of them are glad of that...) I watched this film on the recommendation of several people whose intelligence I had hitherto respected, but was, alas, disappointed. My first reaction to the whole thing as "this film is unremittingly silly!" Andre the Giant is no Alex Karras/Mongo. "Max the Miracle Man" who brings people back from the dead? A woman who thinks she's been married without having agreed to it by saying "I do"? A hero who has to be dragged to climactic action because he's "mostly dead"? This film gives new definition to the term "willing suspension of disbelief." My biggest worry now is that friends who have become fans of this thing will trot it out and force me to watch it again. I will not be saying "As you wish."
Cimarron (1931)
Yancey Cravat = Peer Gynt
I've read all the user comments so far (May 18 2009), and was surprised to see that nobody has noted the close parallel between this story and Henrik Ibsen's play "Peer Gynt". Peer Gynt is a Yancey Cravat character down to his toes. He wanders in search of adventure while his beloved (?) wife Solveig tries to carry on at home. And, of course, the final scene of "Cimarron" uses the exact words Ibsen uses in the final scene of "Peer Gynt": the "hero" says, "Wife and mother, stainless woman. Hide me, hide me in your love." But Sabra does not, to my great disappointment, respond, "Sleep, my boy, my dearest boy" as Solveig did. Because in the final analysis, that's what Yancey is, a boy. He never accepted the responsibilities and, indeed, the challenges, of adulthood. He continued to the end to be an irresponsible excitement-seeking youth, no matter how old he got to be, just as Peer Gynt did.
Of course, this kind of character has lots of precedent in literature: consider Cyrano de Bergerac, Fabrizio del Dongo, Faust, almost every male character of Garcia Marquez, etc.
I noticed that there is no "goofs" section for this movie. One thing that caught my eye: before the church meeting, Yancey gives Isaiah his gun, yet he obviously still has two on the platform, and uses them.
Cadfael: The Rose Rent (1996)
They must be after her money...
The widow Perle has inspired a crew of would-be husbands (and suspects). But what a strange performance! She blames herself for all the deaths, even that of the rose bush, although she's done nothing to cause them. She tries to flee into a convent. She consults Brother Cadfael and then ignores his advice. Wonder why she and her dead husband had no children despite having such a blissful marriage?
The usual solid performance from Cadfael. Other pluses: Niall Bronzesmith and Master Fuller. Hugh Beringar does well with his bit part. Prior Robert isn't quite as odious as he was in "A Morbid Taste for Bones," but Brother Jerome is his usual insufferably smarmy self. Not so strong: the "kidnapper" who brags about his ability to satisfy women, but quails at a noise heard outside his door.
Cadfael is badly misled here and for a long time does indeed "persecute" an innocent man. It's only by luck that he sees the truth when it's almost too late for it to do any good. It's the acting that makes this worth watching, not the plot.
Cadfael: The Sanctuary Sparrow (1994)
Fiona Gillies steals the show
This is one of the better in the Cadfael series. There's not a weak acting job in the lot. Prior Robert and Brother Jerome are their usual slimy selves. Abbot Heribert displays some vigor when it's called for. Cadfael, of course, goes about his sleuthing business with his usual thoroughness and perspicacity. Hugh Beringar shows his usual resolve, courage and sensitivity. The new Aurifaber wife is unlikable but determined and courageous. Iestyn, Daniel, and John are convincing both as suspects and in their actual roles. It's also neat to see a quiet but effective bit performance by Madoc the boatman. But the master performance is that given by Fiona Gillies as Susanna. You can see her also as Beryl Stapleton in the Jeremy Brett version of The Hound of the Baskervilles. A good job there too.
I do find these a little hard to follow at first - who are all these characters, anyway? I think the writer, already knowing all the characters, doesn't quite realize that the viewers don't already know who these people are. Watching it a second time made it much more enjoyable and understandable.
The Hound of the Baskervilles (1978)
What a dog
I bought this on CD. Big mistake. I should have looked it up on IMDb first. I figured I'd add to my "Holmes" collection. This has nothing to do with Holmes. It has nothing to do with "British humor" either - I think some of Cleese is hilarious and I own everything Sellers has ever done. This is just a pure-and-simple complete waste of time. It's not funny. Whoever was in charge of casting must have been throwing darts at a board loaded with the photos of wannabe comedians. My God! Who is that thing cast as Sir Henry Baskerville? It's not well-acted. The plot is ridiculous. The dialogue is childish and in many cases reeks of non-sequitur. And Sherlock Holmes's MOTHER?!?!?!? Puh-leeze. I've walked out of three movies in my life - the musical version of Lost Horizon, Paint Your Wagon (a MUSICAL starring Lee Marvin, believe it or not), and this thing.
The Shootist (1976)
Books's dying nod to Gillom - what did it mean?
In the final scene of the movie, Books (Wayne) shoots three attackers in the saloon, and then the bartender comes in and shoots him. Gillom arrives, grabs a gun and kills the bartender and then throws the gun away. Then the badly wounded Wayne looks at Gillom and gives a brief nod before dying. What did this nod mean? I can think of 3 possibilities: 1. "Thanks!" 2. "You've understood what I meant by "I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. And I won't be laid a hand on..." and you've acted on it like a man. Good work." 3. "You did right to throw the gun away in your disgust." There are probably other interpretations, too. What do y'all think Books meant to convey with that nod to Gillom?
Per qualche dollaro in più (1965)
"Manco" the one-handed
In this "Man With No Name" movie, Eastwood's character is identified by the sheriff who pays Van Cleef his bounty money as "Manco" - or "sleeve" in Spanish.
Note that when Eastwood goes into the tavern after Baby Cavanaugh, he does all his fisticuffs with his left hand only, leaving his gun hand, the right hand, always free. He even deals the draw poker hand entirely with his left hand. This is probably how he got his nickname of "sleeve." (In French, "La Manche," or "sleeve" is the English Channel.)
IMHO, this is the best of the "Man With No Name" trilogy. The scene following the macho confrontation in the dark street, observed by the three muchachos from under the boardwalk, is classic, even though the third reason somehow never gets brought up. Van Cleef is an underrated actor and is at least as good as Eastwood (IMHO) in this film.
"Let's drink to this partnership - with no tricks."
Peter Brook's the Mahabharata (1989)
They worship Krishna!?!
Fascinating! Brook has assembled a terrific cast which does a most creditable job. Standouts are almost too many to list but I was impressed by Duryodhana, Amba, Vyasa, Draupadi, and Drona. Sakuni was suitably oily and Dushasana (sp?) satisfyingly craven. Jeffrey Kissoon as Karna, the most pitiable and conflicted of the characters, gave a memorable performance.
One wonders, though, after seeing this adaptation, why Krishna is considered a "good guy". He advises Bhima to contravene the rules of engagement established before the war begins, just in order to win by striking Duryodhana below the waist (although, of course, after Duryodhana's display of his thigh to Draupadi after the dice scene, it's seen as a suitable comeuppance for him). Krishna contrives to have Yudhishthira, who never lies, lie at a crucial moment to gain an advantage. The lesson one learns, if one tries to learn a lesson, is that the end justifies the means.
To me the whole moral lesson of this epic rests on whether Yudhishthira was actually cheated at dice. If he was not, and continued out of stupidity or addiction to wager away all his assets, then his side did not deserve to "win" the war. Only if he was cheated does he have moral standing here, and the epic is ambiguous about that.
Thought-provoking and well worth watching.
Stagecoach (1939)
Carridine's bullet and his cigarette
One commentator wonders why Hatfield saved a bullet for himself. He didn't. He saved it for Mrs. Mallory, lest she fall into "savage" hands. No suicide was ever intended. As it happened, though, he was the only traveler of the 9 on the stage who died in the film.
Hatfield also registers a change in attitude toward Dallas. Remember his statement that "a gentleman never smokes in the presence of a lady"? And then notice him putting out his cigarette as Dallas enters the room with the baby, indicating he now regarded her as a lady.
The movie shows Hatfield invariably courteous, except early toward Dallas.