marsh876 Reviews

The Player (1992)

Didn't like

[1/10 · 28 January 2017]

I don't like any Altman films, so I didn't expect much from this one, and didn't get anything.

Meanders from one meaningless, unrelated scene to another.

It's like the long intro scene is the model of the rest of the movie.

It got to the point where the dialogue ceased to mean anything.

I can hear the words, but nothing is registering.

The fact that all these stars would appear in this dog says more about them and Hollywood than all the pseudo-jokes.

It devolved into watching a stream of cameos.

As one reviewer said, better to turn off the sound and just watch the celebs, one after the other.

As I said, I don't like any Altman film. Like Mash, with the long, boring, pointless football game at the end, where they spit on Radar. Sure it became a good TV series, but Altman didn't write the script.

Also, "The Player" was too long. After a while, it even gets boring to watch a parade of celebs. And the movie within the movie. I guess they though it was pretty clever then, and people do now, but it's been done many times before, and better. I guess if you're at a Hollywood party, with everyone stoned and drunk, and The Player is playing, everyone hardly watching, and people are saying, snootily, "Oh, look at that", one could acknowledge that this movie exists. Otherwise, no.

Love & Mercy (2014)

Long & Boring

[1/10 · 14 August 2016]

I really wanted to like this movie because I love Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys. Their music is fantastic and will live forever. Unfortunately, I didn't like this movie and I recommend that people not see it.

I will admit that the acting was good, in all parts. The cinematography and costumes were very good, also. It's the story, direction and editing that, in my opinion, are terrible.

The constant back and forth in time is hard to follow. It's hard to tell the time line of events.

Wilson's mental illness is depicted with long, slow, boring, no action scenes, with discordant sound effects in the background.

And it's hard to believe they would try and sell a biopic about a musician and play virtually none of his music. What's the matter? The Beach Boys music wasn't good enough for Pohlad's artistic sentiments? Pohlad's background noise is the "real" music? So this movie is just an ego trip of Pohlad, shamed by the great achievement of Wilson compared to his own, and putting up any garbage as better? Pleeeeze!

And the 2001 homage at the end? Wasn't this movie too long already. We had to sit through that stupidity?

In conclusion, this movie sucked. Go see Mickey Mouse cartoons instead. Will do more for you.

Enough (I) (2002)

Premeditated murder is cool?

[1/10 · 16 June 2015]

I knew someone who liked to say: "An eye for an eye? A HEAD for an eye." Did he write this screenplay? It's like someone accidentally bumps you and you shoot them dead! But first you mash their face up a lot before you kill them, to maximize their pain and your lust for cruelty. People say, "what about his domestic violence against her?" Well, what about her's against him? I guess because he cheated, he deserved to be murdered in the first degree? This movie says our criminal justice system is worthless, essentially non-existent. It says the same for our system of social workers and shelters. Other than being a violent Lifetime-type movie made for vicarious thrills of seeing other people getting it, it does a disservice to abused people. Since the only solution is 1st degree murder, since nearly all people won't do this, and the social safety net is said to be worthless, an abused person will be left feeling helpless.

Skyfall (2012)

Skyfall Sucked

[1/10 · 16 February 2015]

I wish there was a 0 rating. Confusing, meaningless plot. Are all Brits terse and sarcastic all the time? Judy Dench is always good, but she can't save this shipwreck. Good thing I saw it on Amazon Prime. I'd have walked out of the theater after paying $10. The coloring is inconsistent, making it irritating. There is no wit and charm. Just drivel dialogue until the next shoot out. Save your viewing time and watch an old Lassie. You'll get something out of that, at least. I did like the use of the old Astin Martin. And they played some of the old Bond music themes. Be thankful for small mercies! Too many scenes where there is no movement on the screen and silence.

Frank Lloyd Wright (1998)

Great show on Wright, one of the best by Ken Burns

[10/10 · 8 February 2015]

This is one of my favorite shows, movie or documentary; I've watched it many times. It's very well done, always interesting, well edited, well written. I've suggested it to many people to watch. The opening sequence with the survey of some of Wright's most famous buildings along with dramatic Beethoven music (5th Piano Concerto "Emperor") is spectacular. The photography of his buildings is often beautifully and lovingly done.

Some commentators were disappointed that there were not more buildings shown or that there was not more technical architectural discussion. I agree, but that wouldn't have been practical, and probably not so interesting to the general public. For instance, there really wasn't much discussion of "cantilever", which is what is holding up his most famous building, Falling Water. It would have been impossible to show all of the 700+ buildings he designed. Survey and technical information about Wright are much more available on the Internet now than in 1998 when the show came out. There are free online courses that cover these topics in detail.

This show is about Wright the man. His history, the people and events that shaped his life and work, his ideas, along with his greatest works. His life was dramatic enough to provide an interesting story.

One thing that stood out for me: when the stock market crashed in 1929, Wright was 62 years old. People didn't live so long in those days and his career seemed over. He was out of money and couldn't get a commission to build, and the economy had tanked anyway. This comes at the end of the first half of the show, and the commentator says somewhat profoundly: his greatest achievements were yet to come.

Also fascinating was how his 3rd wife influenced him at this stage of his life, and how she moved his career along.

Edward Herrmann does a very good job as narrator. (He died last year in 2014.) More than just reading a script, his voice is thoughtful and responsive to the words, as he's digested them and is reacting personally.

Philip Johnson, eminent architect, is the main person interviewed. Interestingly, Johnson talks about his love-hate relationship with Wright, who he knew personally and by whom he was influenced greatly.

Overall, the show is beautiful, breathtaking, dramatic, informative and at times shocking. Well worth watching by anyone.

Into the Woods (2014)

Into the Toilet

[2/10 · 3 January 2015]

I also considered the titles "The Death of Melody", "Mainstreaming of Bad Taste", "Disney Must Think Audiences Will Eat Anything." Plenty other reviewers have detailed the horribleness of this piece of dreck. Too long, boring, no melody in any of the songs, too many meaningless songs, expected some good special effects at the top of the bean stock but nothing, marketed for, but not a movie for children, etc, etc.

Maybe the play showed the gruesomeness and evil inside each fairy tale, and got some points for ironic humor, but for the movie, it was an orgy of bad taste. Like Johnny Depp the pedophile. The baker's wife and the Prince commit sin, the wife dies but the Prince lives. The traditional double standard: men can stray but woe to the woman who does. There is a Freudian analysis of fairy tales, showing their sexual, violent, the ID of the personality undercurrents. Maybe the play was thinking of this. But the movie just presented a mish mash, pointless mess.

Whiteout (2009)

Bad Cinematography

[1/10 · 26 October 2014]

People have commented on the beautiful shots of the colorful sky, so I suppose there were a few instances of good cinematography in the movie. However, in my opinion, most of the cinematography, editing and art direction sucked.

First of all, it was filmed in Canada. Was there even one scene filmed in Antarctica? I'm sure Antarctica has beauty of it's own separate from Canada (I've been to both), but one wouldn't know it from this film, as it was Antarctica in fantasy only. As people have pointed out, where were the penguins? Where were the walruses?

What bothered me most about the art direction of this movie was the many scenes where one couldn't hardly see anything. Either snow storm, or dark rooms lit by a little flashlight, or just a scene with hardly anything showing, most of the movie seemed to be on such a low budget that they didn't having anything in the back of the scene to show!

Others have pointed out the limitations of this movie, so I won't repeat that. I agree with them wholeheartedly.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Dreck

[1/10 · 31 March 2012]

Does everybody know what the Yiddish work "dreck" means? Maybe it's spelled "drek". We see it here often in these reviews. It's the stuff that comes out of the south end of a horse going north. It's stuff that's most often flushed away. This movie is dreck. It should be flushed away. Yet another case of a director taking a great work by a great author and thinking s(he) is even greater, so the work has to be distorted somehow, so the director's ego's stamp is on it, so everyone will say "this director is a genius in his own right. (NOT). I guess it's tough to be a mediocre director faced with putting on a work of greatness. Where is the director's input? Sorta like opera, where they intentionally sing out of tune and harshly, and those egoists call that art. Opera has been around for hundreds of years, yet this horrible rendering of it is only 50 years or so old. Movies have been around less time, but they're already mucking it up so they can say, "look at me, I can f*ck it up, and I did, so go blow", like children in a playground. It's really amazing how many shills the producer got to vote high ratings and give good reviews. Actually, I have to commend the producer and director for the con they perpetrated. Obviously, they put in the least amount of cost and work, and they got mega-millions back for their paltry effort. The bottom line, thats the reality of our world. I'm sure one could write a high school English essay about the role of "bottom line" in the "Hunger Games" book. That might have more value then this movie dreck. Remember what that means?

Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933)

"Cheap and Vulgar"

[8/10 · 20 March 2012]

One of the lead girls doing the gold digging says she is not "cheap and vulgar" after accepting a check for $10,000 but not cashing it. The man who wrote the check is holding her in his arms and says he'll kiss her every time she says "cheap and vulgar", so she says it over and over and he kisses her each time. That expression is so dated, I thought it was pretty funny. Is English especially rich in expressions for "bad" girls? What is a bad girl? One who enjoys sex? If a woman accepts gifts from a man then dumps him, I think, in modern times, the man is considered to be a fool, the woman is not bad. Anyway, I though the use of this phrase was great, a glimpse into morals and attitudes of the past. Right now, I'm going to go out and look for some "cheap and vulgar" women. They sound like fun! Oh, the rest of the movie? It was great too. I agreed with everybody else who liked it.

There's No Business Like Show Business (1954)

Hard to watch

[5/10 · 27 November 2011]

I love Irving Berlin and in fact, all of the stars in the movie. But I find it hard to watch. Despite the spectacular song and dance numbers, the movie is a bore-fest. It would have been better to limit the dialog and scenes in between the musical numbers to a minimum, like they do in a Broadway play. Instead, we are treated to a scene of Merman dunking O'Connor's head in a sink. Or pseudo-drama when a son says he wants to become a priest. So the father was an idiot. Who cares? The first number was Berlin's "Alexander's Rag Time Band". They sang it over and over with different nationalities in different sets. Yes, this was Berlin's first big hit, but it's not that good that we want to hear it played over and over and over again. Even Paul McCartney's "Yesterday" would get old after about the 5th consecutive replaying.

The only reason to watch this movie, as others have pointed out, is to see Marilyn Monroe. Is there any scene in any movie where she is not wonderful? Obviously, my view is slanted towards her. Her voice is so rich, her singing, dancing and movements so sensual, anytime she's on the screen is magic. After her fabulous "Heat Wave" number, all Merman can do is run it down. As in the cheesiest of scripts, the characters remain fixed in their bold, brassy, rah-rah something characters.

A Thousand Clowns (1965)

Great about 3/4 way.

[7/10 · 27 November 2011]

I've heard about this movie for many years, and finally got to see it after it came out on DVD. I'd heard it is one of the greatest movies. It was great, for about 3/4 of it. Up to the scene in the basement abandoned Chinese restaurant. Before this, it was funny, philosophical, witty, insightful, very creative.

But starting with the Chinese Restaurant scene, the movie became preachy, ponderous, wordy, and lecturing. And the scenes with the chipmunk clown were very unpleasant to watch. Does it take that much talent to create such a repellent character? Why did we have to be submitted to it? Was it only so the 11 year old (actually 17, ridiculous in it's own right) could tell him off so Murry could feel his education was complete, so he could now get a job? When Murry, 5 months earlier, decided to get out of the rat race, he wasn't thinking of the education of the kid.

Even though Murry's job status was central to the plot, no mention was made of how he was supporting himself and his nephew. Just on savings? Those run out eventually, so Murry would have had to face reality anyway, social workers or not.

In all it's hippy philosophy, including the sell-out end, there is presented the idea that work is bad. This is not a hippy idea, it's bedrock, mainstream Puritan work ethic. This "work is bad" idea is so pervasive, that when saying that work can be fun, someone said to me, "if it's fun, you should be paying them." They are paying me to make something they can sell for a profit. They don't give a fig how I feel about it. Actually, if I work with enthusiasm, my employer would like it, because I would be more productive.

Believe it or not, humanity, some people enjoy their jobs, and actually look forward to going to work. Now, since Murry didn't enjoy his work, it was his job to find a situation that he would enjoy. Instead, he runs down all working people as being inferior to him, and he runs down all work as bad, harmful to the worker. So, clinging to this falsehood, the movie bogged down in the last 1/4 with ponderous scenes serving to perpetuate the Puritan myth.

I think the movie is worth watching for the first 3/4, as long as the viewer realizes that the cop out at the end is not so much of Murry compromising, but of the playwright and director. They refused to tell a really revolutionary idea that work can be fun, but instead had the free spirit of Murry succumb to the repressive establishment and become one of the worker bees he so despised. (See Herbert Marcuse "Eros and Civilization".)

Shoot the Moon (1982)

A piece of s**t.

[2/10 · 1 September 2011]

I feel a little embarrassed disliking this movie because all of the other reviewers liked it. I will mention some of the good points. There were occasional beautiful camera shots, but an occasional beautiful camera shot does not a good movie, or in fact, a movie, make. It was delightful to see the main actors in action, they have truly wonderful careers.

However:

As someone else pointed out, most of the scenes are very claustrophobic. Or cluttered. Perhaps the director was trying to make the audience uncomfortable. Or trying to show how the husband and wife were so stressed out. But the result caused me to greatly dislike most of the movie for just this point. In my opinion, this was the work of a bad, egotistical director. "I don't care what anyone thinks or likes, I'll do it my way." Sure, buddy, do it your way. Your way stinks.

Along with cluttered scenes, most of the scenes were loud, screeching, with terrible sound. Again, trying to make the audience uncomfortable? Is this how the couple felt inside, always screeching and yelling and discomfort and pain? That's how I felt watching this movie. Even the ocean sounds were harsh. Also, the childish piano playing grated my nerves. Was this intentional? Or was this a bad sound job? The only way I could watch most of the movie was to turn the sound way low and use subtitles. It wasn't as bad as Catch 22, but bad enough.

That the kids were always talking at the same time and the mother always yelling at them was very unrealistic. This observation was from a professional social worker who has made a long career of working with dysfunctional families.

The racism and antisemitism was disturbing, with the mother's lawyer. More pie in the face to the audience. I think, with the lack of worthwhile police, prosecutors, judges and lawyers, the idea communicated was that these people didn't live in society, that they could do anything they wanted without consequence. Of course, the ultimate would be murder. Why didn't they cheese up the plot (what little of it there was) with this, then have the father say "sorry", and we're all listening to the Rolling Stones again and laughing and dancing.

The lack of police and lack of consequence for violent action was insulting to the audience. The only time a policeman showed up, toward the beginning, the policeman seemed weak and ineffectual. The police weren't called when the several violent scenes occurred. This, and many other scenes, stretches the suspension of belief that movies always require. So, the show becomes a comic book, with one meaningless random scene following another.

In another ridiculous scene, the parents are having sex at a hotel with the kids in the next room, and they don't lock the door, so one of their children walks in and sees them in bed. I suppose the kids walked in on them having sex when they were all living together? Isn't that in itself a form of child abuse? Other reviewers say that the father slowly fell apart due to the divorce, till her was nuts at the end. Sure, people go nuts, but this degeneration was too much and too silly. He essentially lost all moral sense. Was he smoking crack? Oh wait, did they have crack then?

The movie gave the message that it's OK to yell and cause a fight in a restaurant, OK to beat your daughter with a hanger, OK to break and enter, OK to kidnap, OK to do property damage, OK to beat someone to death or nearly so, and all one has to do is say "sorry", and everyone will forgive and we'll all be buddies. They even make fun of this when the daughter points this out to the father, yet she, the physically abused child, still forgives him in an oh so touching scene, (oh so nauseating scene). The movie gives the message that child abuse is OK because everyone is hunky dory afterwords. No one is willing to take responsibility, in fact, no one can take responsibility. We live in a big comic book where anyone can do anything to anyone else, and it all turns out well in the end.

We're left hanging at the end. Does the wife forgive the husband? Does he live? His yet again appeal for forgiveness and compassion after he was the total bastard was again pitiful. The children, including the beaten one, all rush to him. What does a father have to do before the children and wife say enough? Kill all of them and himself? So they don't have to listen to the terrible sound background of the movie anymore? At the end, I wondered, what was the point of having watched this movie?

The movie seemed to be a poor man's Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf. Albert Finney certainly was an imitation Richard Burton, and I think he did a good job copying Burton. Diane Keaton kept slipping into her Annie Hall persona. Fortunately, she showed us she could do more in this movie. The constant yelling and emotional violence (and physical violence in this movie) reminded me of Virginia Wolf. But in that movie, there was some sort of reconciliation and understanding of the underlying conflict. As another reviewer pointed out, there was no understanding of the roots of the conflict, just a lot of yelling at each other.

The Member of the Wedding (1952)

Talk fest going nowhere

[1/10 · 10 June 2009]

If you like screechy, overacted, talky, go nowhere movies, you'll like this one. Unfortunately, I don't like them. That's not to criticize anyone who likes this movie. There are different tastes and different movies to accommodate them.

Sure, 27 year old Julie Harris looks silly playing a 12 year old. Actors are often older than their parts.

And sure, suspension of belief can be seen as the basis of all art. That's not a mountain, that's a painting of one, etc, etc.

Sure, this is a play made into a movie with the original cast, so the play could be preserved for all time. That's certainly good.

Sure, Ethel Waters is a strong presence and wonderful to see and hear.

But, The movie itself is a piece of drek. Don't know what that means? Look it up.

Some people have pulled off this method acting quite well. Marlon Brando in his early movies. Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke. There, Paul has spurts of talky, preachy, stagy one man shows. But he, the great actor he is, pulled it off. In Member of the Wedding, Julie Harris is endless with it and it's very offensive.

If this part had a 12 year old in it, why didn't they find a 12 year old to play it? I don't know what Carson McCullers was thinking, but the part she produced was a 20 something psychotic mental patient. As others observed, having a real 12 year old utter those lines and throw those tantrums would have been laughable. Even those tantrums are more like a 3 year old.

When she went out into the "cruel world": All it seems she did was go to a downtown at night. Similar to where she went to visit her father. Yet it was a big surprise that men wanted sex. Do men in downtowns only want sex at night?

I can suspend belief. I can accept middle-aged people playing kids, I can stand talky, preachy monologues. But I can't stand something going nowhere. Like I don't like music without melody. I didn't see any plot to this thing. The 12 year old didn't seem different to me at the end. Just as psychotic.

I would have preferred a Twilight Zone sort of thing, playing on the audiences' gullibility at suspending belief. At the end, it's revealed that she really is a psychotic 20 something escapee from a mental hospital, and every one else is playing along, because she's a serial killer or something. At least it would have made sense then .

In a way, this movie is contemporary. Remember the show "13 going on 30". About the social phenomenon of today's 13 year old girls looking and acting like they are 30? These days, no one would have the guts to actually cast a 30 year old as the 13 year old one. But back then, in Member of the Wedding, they actually did! Oh well, I've had more fun writing this than I did watching the movie. My apologies to those who like it. If it wasn't for diverse tastes, there wouldn't be any movies that I do like, like Howard the Duck. And talk about a talky movie going nowhere!

Away from Her (2006)

Beautiful but Sad

[10/10 · 18 May 2008]

This was a beautiful but sad movie. Acting by all was wonderful. Depiction of the cold, snowy north was very good. Sensitive, lyrical, dignified.

A few things I didn't like. Jumping around in time is the fad now in movies. All it did here was create confusion. The ending was also confusing and ambiguous.

But beyond these things, the movie created a tremendous feeling, like great art can. And this was great art.

Some have commented that this movie did now show Alzheimer's disease in the way it really is. I think we have to give a movie some latitude, as there is only a limited time to a movie. I think, though, the tragic effect on the victim of the disease and their family is well shown, and we the audience feel it also.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Self-indulgent Garbage.

[1/10 · 14 March 2008]

This movie is pretty much self-indulgent garbage. The story is very contrived and silly. Why would the guy who found the money go back to the scene of the crime, knowing that all hell would be breaking loose by the bad guys and cops? Yet this folly is the crux of the plot, because his return enables the bad guy to get on the chase. The bad guy, Chigurh, is a bad remake of many nut-killers of the past. Indestructible no matter what, with a stupid grin on his face all the time, and omniscient in knowing all, seeing all. A cartoon villain. A lot of Llewelyn's decisions and actions can be seen as stupid, but these were necessary to keep it going. So, in the end, who cares? They say there are 5 basic movie plots, and this one, the chase, is very common. So common, in fact, that NCFOM turns out empty and shallow. I guess the makers feel that, since this is an art film, they can just throw anything on the screen, and we're supposed to appreciate it like it was a piece of modern art hanging on a wall. That's OK, but who stares at a piece of meaningless shapes and colors for the time this movie ran? What are the Coens going to do next time? A five hour flick shot at a slaughterhouse, with lots of close ups and details?

Below (2002)

Didn't make any sense

[1/10 · 13 February 2008]

This movie didn't make any sense to me. It started out good, but fell apart quickly. There are occasionally some good underwater visuals, but not enough to justify watching this mess. Maybe there is a plot or story there somewhere, but it's not worth my effort to find it. I wasn't in the navy on a submarine, and not in WWII, either, but I can't believe the constant chip on the shoulder, angry and tough talk. I think this is a very modern phenomena in movies. It's a lazy writer's device, no character development or human warmth or relationships need be dealt with. Most of the time it's dark with glaring lights, often one doesn't know what one is seeing or what is going on. It's hard to care about anyone in the movie or what is happening.

The Fury (1978)

Pretty bad and useless

[2/10 · 12 February 2008]

I thought this movie was pretty bad and useless. It was one meaningless scene after the other, with little relevance to any overall plot or direction. A search and a chase in an overlong movie. I did like the scenes with Kirk Douglas, but they didn't seem to use him a lot, surprising since he got top billing. Most of the horror was tossing around red water. I think blood is more thick and slower to drip. As one gets used to seeing red water splashed in scene after scene, it looses whatever shock value it may have had. The final scene was pretty silly, with the girl making ridiculous body and facial expressions, and the obvious use of a manikin. As others have noted, if these teens had so much power, why did any of it have to happen? Some bad movies make good background when one is doing something else. This one doesn't even come up to that standard.

Richie Rich (1994)

Good Fluff

[6/10 · 29 September 2007]

Sometimes, when I come home tired from work and have a brewski and want to zone out, I feel like a total fluff movie. Richi Rich fills the bill. It moves along, something most movies don't. It's harmless and doesn't require any involvement on my part. The jokes are silly. I can miss some of it on a fridge run, come back to it, and still follow it. In fact, if I don't finish the movie, it doesn't seem to matter. However, it is charming, so I usually do.

The movie pokes fun at the super rich on a superficial level, but that's all right. I'll save the harshly critical movies for a different mood. There's some lovely views of the Biltmore estate. There's light ribbing of the corporate world. Oh dear, I'm falling asleep. I'll miss the end of the movie. Too many brewskies.

Roman Holiday (1953)

Perhaps THE best.

[10/10 · 29 September 2007]

As Robert Osborne of TCM says, Roman Holiday is one of the best movies, maybe the best movie. It's not grand in scope, like Gone With the Wind or Citizen Kane. It's really a simple romantic comedy: Royalty goes slumming for a day to rub shoulders with the commoners, while a couple of benign hustlers try to make a buck from it. Hustler and Blue Blood fall for each other, big surprise. The settings in Rome are nice, the photography is OK. The plot is sweet, the dialog clever. So what makes this movie so great? It's Audrey and Gregory. One could say she was the most beautiful woman in the world at that time. (Along with Liz Taylor?). Her youth, enthusiasm, sweetness, charm, pretty face and slender figure make a package that is so spectacular it's probably never been surpassed since. It's hard not for anyone not to fall in love with her. And they dress her to show it all off! Gregory, himself tall, dark, handsome and slim, is also remarkable with his comedic style. He also has a charm that is unique to him and is very attractive. They are both the best of actors, and the script let's them shine.

What some consider the best scene is when Gregory puts his hand in the mouth of the statue and pretends his hand is being bitten. Audrey's reaction, they say, was completely natural, as Greg's acting was so good it fooled her.

Eddie Albert is very good, as is his beard!

Of course, when you look at who directed it, Wyler, who made some of filmdom's greatest, like Wuthering Heights, Ben Hur and many others, it may make sense that this movie is so good. But putting together a "dream team" has often flopped. But there's no smugness or overconfidence here. Like in the scene when Princess and Reporter separate in front of the palace. The vulnerability and emotion is remarkable. And the end, with the "making love", as they used to say, with their eyes, again remarkable.

For such a lighthearted movie, it has at bottom a dark theme: the classes cannot mix. The audience feels this as the source of the sadness at the end of the film. It's reminiscent of The Great Gatsby: people can interact with the Rich, thinking they may be treated as equals or even ascend, but in the end the Old Guard accepts no newcomers and even tramples whomever it encounters.

A rating score of 10 is the best that can be given in IMDb. This movie rates higher than that.

Bandits (2001)

Useless

[3/10 · 26 September 2007]

This movie is pretty useless. It just rambles on and on, going nowhere. It's not too long before we stop caring about the characters and stop caring about what happens next. The stars in it are shallow and annoying, just going through the paces, thinking about the big paychecks their agents negotiated for them. They have the same smug, bored expressions throughout.

I guess the movie's best use is for late night TV cable stations where it's essentially filler between commercials. "Oh look, they've got big stars on this station. Let's watch until the next commercial break, then we'll change the channel." I've never heard more useless mumbling and whining in any movie. There are scenes that are totally stupid and inane. Maybe they have a special award somewhere for a film that best grates the nerves of the audience. Does it take a special talent to do this?

The positive side is that Bob Dylan sings a couple of songs in the soundtrack, and it's a special pleasure to hear him. I don't know why he wanted his name associated with this piece of garbage, but here we have it. Someone said they spent $80 million making Bandits. I wonder how much Mr. Dylan got?

Another positive is that there are some good location shots in Oregon, California and Nevada. However, there is no integration of the characters or plot into the surroundings. They may as well have blue screened it, and just paid that money to themselves.

I saw it on television with commercial breaks. I know it's a bad movie when I'm looking forward to the commercials.

The "twist" ending? It's been done so many times, it was an insult to once again throw it at us. Besides, it wasn't much of a surprise, as we saw it all being played out.

I, Robot (2004)

OK if you're stoned

[2/10 · 20 August 2007]

This movie is not bad to watch if you are stoned while you're watching it. Maybe it could be shown at a party where everybody is feeling pretty good, and they are mostly ignoring it, it's playing in the background. There is one meaningless flashy scene after another, lots of eye candy. I saw it while messing around on the computer, and it provided a nice background. When I focused attention on the movie, it didn't make any sense. The CGI seemed poor quality. Fuzzy and cartoony. I'm not gay, so skin shots of Will Smith and his butt and pecs didn't do it for me. I did like his leather outfit, though, just the right amount of wear. I guess the silliest thing about this movie is that, at times, it seems to be taking itself seriously. Other reviewers saw lots of other movies in this one. I saw Columbo. Nobody believes the cop until the end, when he's proved right. Actually, the movie was kinda boring. They used the same special effects over and over. That's why I say it's best if your mind if fried or it's just background. Maybe it would have been better on the big screen, where all the guy flick stuff (shoot outs, explosions, homo-erotic scenes, sexless women, car chases, extended hand to hand, adolescent attitude ends in success, etc, etc, etc) could have been better appreciated. Oh, well. Will Smith probably made a load of money on this. Does anything else matter?

Secondhand Lions (2003)

Stands out as excellent

[10/10 · 17 August 2007]

Every decade or so, a really special movie comes out, that touches and entertains like few others do. Robert Duvall and Michael Caine are terrific, the story is very good, the flashbacks are also very good. I saw this movie several years after it had come out on a recommendation, and now I recommend it to everyone. It has a special magic. Animal actors are present throughout, and some are important parts of the plot. The animals perform well, and are a delight to see. The movie is funny and poignant. The coming of the boy into the lives of the old curmudgons changes their lives and the boy's, but it's told in a subtle manner. I like the movie, and recommend it to everybody.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

A total piece of crap!

[1/10 · 9 August 2007]

Everyone compares this total piece of crap to Shawn of the Dead. Who cares? A movie should stand on it's own. I didn't see Shawn, and won't. Fuzz is boring, long, stupid, not funny. There is no character development. Just an excuse for car chases, explosions and shoot outs. The fast editing and sound effects were distracting and more for the ego of the director than the viewing pleasure of the audience. How bad was it? A recurring theme is the main character's house plant! The film is full of stupid, gratuitous violence. I agree with people who say that the rating is fixed. Are the British so desperate for foreign exchange that they all got together to praise and highly rate this film, so the rest of the suckers around the world would buy or rent it?

The Sleepy Time Gal (2001)

Random

[1/10 · 19 July 2007]

This movie is made up of random scenes with random characters. Very little linkage is made between the scenes or characters. So a lot of what is presented is absurd, meaningless or boring. I guess if one saw it over and over, and if one had an overactive imagination, one could create for oneself a story line. Of course, that would be your story line, not the writer's or director's, because they didn't have a story line or any conception of what this movie is or is supposed to say. No scene or character is developed enough so that one could care about them. Even the music is cut short. The best part of the movie was the credits at the end, where they did play the "Sleepy Time Gal" theme song to completion. The acting was bad and contrived. But, to the actors' credit, without a plot or story line or anything to go on, what could they do? To the movie's credit, some of the random scenes have beautiful photography. I notice a lot of movies these days have a lot of confusing, random scenes that jump around in time. I suppose someone asked "why should a movie be linear?", and now film makers are making non-linear films. But it takes more skill than this move maker has (or most (all?) of the rest) to pull it off. I guess a big ego director is saying? "This is my art, take it or leave it!" Well, I'll leave it.

The Beautician and the Beast (1997)

Fun Movie

[7/10 · 4 January 2007]

I though this was a fun, lighthearted movie. I expected the worst, and was surprised how much I enjoyed it. It was put together well and wasn't boring or slow moving. There were funny moments and comments that I remember still. It started out with a similar premise to the Nanny TV show, but quickly moved beyond it. Fran showed more depth of character and independence in this movie than she did (or was allowed to do) in her TV series. Throughout, she is pretty and sexy and dressed to catch attention. It's pretty much a modern fairy tail, like Cinderella, but it doesn't require much suspension of belief. She moves smoothly to charm all around her, including the audience. Timothy Dalton was OK as the Beast, but it was Fran's movie, and he might have been graciously stepping out of her way.