Reviews

I am surprised that this excellent movie rated only a 6.9. In my view this is a superb suspense drama which expertly captures the feeling of the walls closing in on Dan Gallagher as a result of his supposedly one night (OK, one weekend) stand. All the the leads are excellent, including Ellen Gatzen, who plays the young daughter superbly. The script is excellent, and carries us along with a sense of foreboding inevitability. Michael Douglas perfectly expresses Dan's sorrowful regret, just as Anne Archer portrays Beth's anguish and steely determination. I have no doubt that anyone choosing to view this flick will not be disappointed.

When you look up the word "iconic" in your Funk & Wagnalls, you'll find this movie listed as Exhibit A. Billy Wilder was a genius both as a writer and as a filmmaker. It's no surprise that, with such outstanding co-writers as Raymond Chandler and James M. Cain, the script is superb. The cast is outstanding. Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck have great chemistry, but for my money Edward G. Robinson, in a supporting role, stands out. The dramatic line never sags from the foreboding opening to the inevitable tragic conclusion. It's no exaggeration to say that this classic movie is one of the handful of truly great film noirs (or is it films noir?).

A very apt comparison to this movie is "12 o'clock high." Both films are about bombing. "12 o'clock high" examines the US concept of daylight precision bombing, while "Dam Busters" looks at the competing British doctrine of night bombing. While "12 o'clock high" is one of the all-time great war movies, "Dam Busters" is as flat as a glass of stale ginger ale. The primary reason is the lack of human interest. While the US film examines in very effective detail the psychological effects of war on both leaders and soldiers, the British flick is mainly technical and eschews any real human interest. In the end it's a bore.

I am drawn to any flick that has the great Robert Mitchum in it. Curt Jurgens is another, Germanic, plus. I understand that the movie sought to rise above the portrayal of midwar movies of Germans as cardboard villains, and to show them as fighters - like ours - risking their lives for their country. However the movie is curiously leaden. The incessant shifting from one submarine's command to another becomes repetitive and stifling. The movie's animus becomes the shifting strategies as each commander tries to outwit the other. This goes on just too long. Also the faux camaraderie between the two captains in the closing scenes is just not credible. The production values are good, but I don't understand the 7.4 user rating.

I was drawn to this movie by the user rating of 7.5, which, after viewing it, I can't quite understand. The Western vistas are indeed spectacular, and many of the scenes are composed in an almost painterly way (which actually becomes somewhat of a distraction, as the camera lovingly lingers on them, as a painting in a gallery). However, the movie would be benefit by some brutal editing. It's not just the time; I have seen 90 minute flicks that seem longer than Lawrence of Arabia, which is so well-made it seems to fly by even at 3 hours and 46 minutes. It's a matter of pacing, which in this flick seems glacial, especially due to the director's having the camera dwell too long on a scene after its essential action has been completed, and having dialogue delivered in as drawn out a fashion as possible.

Also, the movie neglects two key aspects of the history involved. First, it glosses over Jesse James's deep involvement with pro-slavery forces (especially in "Bloody Kansas") and, later, his involvement with pro-Confederate guerilla forces. Even his robberies often had a political twist, aiming at Republican and pro-Union targets. Second, it completely omits the fact that Robert Ford was convicted for the murder of James, and quickly pardoned by Governor Crittendon.

The climax of the movie is of course Ford's assassination of James, but the post-assassination scenes are so drawn out as to seem to me to be almost anticlimactic. And, although the movie does not portray any Robin Hood-like activity by James, the use in the final scenes of the popular song celebrating him for such might mislead the viewer into believing it's true, which it wasn't. My final kvetch - a personal one - is that I have trouble seeing Brad Pitt as a heavy, having seen him play so many off-kilter, eccentric characters (Burn After Reading, Snatch, Bullet Train).

The first time that Neeson's character beats someone senseless in this flick, we hear the victim's tooth hitting the floor. In case there's any doubt, the closed captions tell you "tooth clatters." The second time he beats someone senseless, exactly the same thing happened. That's the point at which I switched it off. What's the point of watching a movie whose major point seems to be the exquisite detail with which the avenger's wrath is portrayed? Liam Neeson seems to have emulated Bruce Willis' collapse into an automaton of violence, and this movie convinced me to henceforth avoid anything with which he is associated. And what on earth is Laura Dern, a decent actress, doing in this schlockfest? This is a flick which seems to be aimed at an audience of morons and/or sadists.

First off, Michael Caine and Demi Moore propel this movie, and I always enjoy seeing Joss Ackland. The story, like any well-made heist movie, does indeed keep you going, to see how the hit will be executed and how it will turn out. Having said that, there are just a few too many contrivances and improbabilities for belief (I won't list them to avoid spoiling it). Turning the movie into a flashback is to me a dicey choice, and the ending is just a bit too cutesy. BTW, we learn about what happened to Moore's character; I feel cheated that there was no word on the fate of Caine's character. Unsatisfying, but it does keep one's interest.

I have a serious criticism of this film, in that it plays with too much of a comic edge. The Brinks job was a serious crime and the movie plays it largely in Keystone Kops mode. Having read a bit about the crime, I can say there are some liberties taken with the facts.

Having said that, every historical film takes liberties, and this movie is just a delight to watch. It also stays largely true to the characters of the thieves involved. The script is simply wonderful and William Friedkin does his usual brilliant job directing. The flow of the action never lets up and the acting is great - Peter Falk, Gena Rowlands, Peter Boyle, Paul Sorvino and Warren Oates are all wonderful. Also great are the lesser known actors, especially Kevin O'Conner as Gusciora and Gerard Murphy as Richardson.

An added delight - especially for me as a Boston boy - is the on-the-scene of the Boston locales, many of them now gone, like Dudley St. Station. This is just a wonderfully enjoyable movie.

OK, I like Robert Duvall as much as anyone else. It's also apparent from his films that he is a believing Christian and not afraid to let anyone know it. The movie really, really wants to be a feelgood film about life-changing experiences. It pushes all the appropriate buttons in its attempt to get there. But I must say that it just never really makes it. There are two basic problems with the movie. First, we never really get an in-depth look at exactly what is eating at Luke. Secondly, none of the activities undertaken by Johnny to supposedly "change" Luke seem particularly logical or meaningful. I understand that the overtly Christian message of the movie caused a lot of dissension. I'm all for overtly Christian messages, but in this case it did not seem - to this viewer anyway - to be particularly relevant to Luke's case.

This movie aspires to be the sort of creepy, eerie suspense movie that we have so often seen take place in baronial English estates, only this time transplanted to the rural USA. It tries very hard, propelled primarily by the fine work of Judith Anderson and - especially - Edward G. Robinson. All the elements are there - hidden family secrets, mysterious places to which "you must never go," dark windswept nights, lonely trails in the woods, etc. Etc. However the whole thing never quite gels. Part of the problem is the overlay of a teenage love triangle (played by people too old for the parts) which distracts from the main story and which I strongly suspect is not found in the book on which the movie is based, but was doubtless added for what they thought would be audience interest. The flick starts well but after a while just bogs down.

Here we have a film with, as they might say, no redeeming social value. Of character development there is none. Plot surprises - nada. Sympathetic characters - zip. The whole movie is an exercise in gore so over the top that it enters the realm of comedy, with tongue firmly in cheek. Vincent Price certainly discovered his metier in playing Grand Guignol, and here he surpasses himself. And what a cast! I cannot think of any other movie with such a comprehensive roster of the leading British mid-20th century actors. Jack Hawkins, Robert Morley, Milo O'Shea, Robert Coote, Dennis Price, Harry Andrews, Michael Hordern, Ian Hendry, Coral Browne, Diana Rigg and even Diana Dors for Pete's sake. How they assembled them all is a small miracle. And one can only imagine what fun they must have had putting this together. An unalloyed delight !!

It has often been commented that the travails facing the parents of an intellectually challenged child and those facing the parents of a child prodigy are - though different - equally prodigious. This movie explores that theme superbly. It's the true story of child chess prodigy Josh Waitzkin, who learned chess at 7, forced Gary Kasparov to a draw at 11, and became a National Master at 13.

The cast is outstanding - Ben Kingsley, Samuel Jackson, and Joe Mantegna. But the actor who carries the movie is the incredibly endearing and charming Max Pomeranc, who was 9 years old when he made the film, and was himself among the 20 top US chess players in his age category. His lifelike and restrained performance carries the movie through. Definitely a must-see.

Oh, dear. What an overwrought, bombastic, pretentious exercise in melodrama this is. The plot is so Byzantine and convoluted it induces vertigo. And it would be one thing if the movie propelled the action forward with some kind of urgency, but no. Look up "turgid" in your Funk and Wagnalls and this will be Example A. Things move with all the alacrity of a snail having a bad day. There is way too much talk (and talk and talk) as opposed to action. And the sojourn into the supernatural gives the movie an unnecessary touch of Grand Guignol. The final resolution is simply preposterous. The only reason I watched to the end was curiosity as to how they world tie all these improbabilities up in a coherent way. They didn't.

This is a chilling and gripping story. As many users have written, it is long on talk and short on action. But the talk is all very necessary in leading us slowly and frighteningly to the awful truth about clergy sexual abuse, and the role of the hierarchy - in this case Bernard Cardinal Law - in covering ti up. (Sadly there are still many diehard Catholics who maintain that the whole clergy abuse story - which has gone worldwide - is an anti-Catholic plot.)

All the cast is excellent, especially Michael Keaton, who has come very far since his Beetlejuice days. There's a personal angle for me, as I used to work at the Globe's Morrissey Blvd. Plant, and the film is shot largely in the actual facility, which has now been restructured for other purposes.

The movie's rating of 8.1 is entirely deserved.

This is just a good old-fashioned traditional western with all the expected twists and turns and no particular surprises. And that's just fine. So it's formulaic; so what? All 100+ of Haydn's symphonies are formulaic, and they're all masterpieces. All the standard issues of script, action, direction and camera work are executed in a workmanlike and effective manner, and the story keeps you involved. One issue for me is the relatively unknown cast, aside from Willem Dafoe, who does his usual fine work. My quibble is with Christoph Waltz, who I've never seen before. To me his voice and persona just don't seem to befit the character. Another minor detail is the color scheme, which is tilted a bit too much toward sepia (a trick from The Godfather). But on the whole this is an enjoyable hour and 3/4.

This is just a topflight movie in every way. Lillian Hellman was an unrepentant Stalinist Commie, but boy she could turn out a good script. (My favorite quote about Hellman is from her contemporary Mary McCarthy: "Every word out of her mouth is a lie, including 'and' and 'the' .") The movie is based on a very successful stage play but the movie never feels stagebound. I can't imagine a better cast - Audrey Hepburn, Shirley McClaine, James Garner, and Miriam Hopkins. Hopkins appeared in the original movie version of the play, These Three (1936) which Wyler also directed; in this version she takes a different role more befitting of actress 25 years older. Of especial note is Fay Bainter's portrayal of the vindictive Mrs. Tilford. Her accusatory scene is chilling; the scene of her atonement is heartbreaking. This is a gripping, must-see movie and I think the use of black and white is perfect for the material.

This movie simply knocks it out of the park. Where do I begin? First off, the story is a wonderful one: two misfits, one human and one equine, heal each other. Secondly, the script is tremendous, lean and tight, with no excess verbiage. Dialogue is kept to a minimum; most of the story is shown via the visual imagery. And the cinematography is stupendous. Thirdly, the acting. I had never heard of Mathias Schoenaerts, but his work in portraying this angry man in the process of self-redemption is monumental. The scene of his second meeting with his daughter is just a master class in facial expression, and rips your heart out. And who knew Bruce Dern was still alive, let alone working? Fourth, the very final scene is one of the most powerful and touching conclusions to any film I have seen. I don't understand the user rating of just 6.8. Do not miss this fabulous movie.

I tuned in to this on TCM for Loretta Young and Brian Aherne. I'd never seen Aherne do comedy. After seeing this flick, I have to say that maybe he can play comedy but this particular vehicle is not the one to show off whatever comic talents he had. After a promising start the movie quickly gets bogged down in unnecessarily confusing plot complications. The musical score is a bit ham-handed in its handling of comic situations, and the script, as has been mentioned elsewhere here, lacks the comic zing of any number of other contemporaneous comedy mysteries. To me the movie had no satisfactory resolution, but just sort of petered out. Not recommended.

This is just a superb movie, even though, in 1949, it is a thinly veiled remake of 1937's Captains Courageous, based on Rudyard Kipling's eponymous novel. Adding to the feel of a remake is the presence of the great Lionel Barrymore in both movies.

The story is precisely the same in both cases; a young boy learns with difficulty about honor and duty via the tutelage of an older man, in this case Richard Widmark, reprising Spencer Tracy. Dean Stockwell plays a more appealing child than Freddie Bartholomew's spoiled, entitled Harvey. There's a host of fine supporting actors as well.

It's not quite fair to call this a remake, though essentially that's what it is. However, it stands exceedingly well in its own.

What an undisciplined, run-on, sprawling grab-bag of a movie this is.

To take up a cinematic portrayal of such a divisive figure is a fool's errand in the first place. To some Hoover was a hero who brought forensic science to the FBI and professionalized it; to others he was a racist megalomaniac besotted with his own power. To an extent, both views are true but to try to unify them into a coherent production is a huge challenge. "Patton" succeeded cinematically in portraying both sides of a controversial leader, but "J. Edgar" does not reach that level.

First off, the movie is too long; it feels longer than its two hour 17 minute length, because it does not sustain a forward-moving, propulsive dramatic line. There is simply too much jumping around, and flashbacks are used excessively. Also I do not understand the excessive preoccupation with the Lindbergh kidnapping case. After a while one just says enough already. More time could have been spent on the FBI's work on organized crime and on fighting the Ku Klux Klan.

There were many points at which I was tempted to throw in the towel, but I stuck with it to the end to see how the movie would resolve itself. I can't it did so in a satisfying fashion.

Burt Reynolds was a better actor than generally given credit for (although, in whatever role he was playing, he overused that distinctive laugh-giggle). The production values are better here than in a lot of 70's movies, and the casting and acting are fine. However, there is an ambiguity in the tone of the movie. It opens with a chilling portrayal of a cold-blooded murder committed by redneck police. Gator quite logically pursues vengeance with.single-mindedness, but his quest is, at the end, resolved in a semi-humorous way that to me somewhat makes light of the horror of the opening scene. It's still a good popcorn burner though.

I am at a loss to understand the low rating and the many poor reviews . I find this a wonderfully zany comedy. If Nichols was aiming, as has been said, to emulate the great comedies of Laurel and Hardy and others in the 30's and 40's, I feel he succeeded. There are so many wonderful scenes that, even without dialogue, convey the insanity of the situation; the scene of the bus on the bridge is a wordless piece of comedic genius. The three leads - Nicholson, Beatty, and Channing - work together superbly. To me this is a woefully underrated and neglected movie. This is the second time I have seen it on TCM, and it won't be the last.

It's nice to see a very good revival of the venerable genre of the Western. I was surprised to learn that this is Nicholas Cage's first western; he manages the job superbly. I suspect we will be seeing a lot more in the future from Ryan Kiera Armstrong, who, at 13, shows exceptional talent in a role that's far from simple. We also have some gorgeous vistas of the Montana scenery. The story is one of vengeance, a theme which never gets old. My only mild complaint is the story has to be gussied up with some contemporary psychological trappings, but that doesn't impede the story. The movie has a lot of similarities to Clint Eastwood's The Unforgiven, but definitely stands on its own. Well worth a see.

I was fond of this movie when I watched it many years ago, but there was always something about it that made me uneasy. I dragged it out recently and watched it again, and the light dawned.

This bunch of National Guardsmen is the most motley assortment of flaky, loony, miserable characters ever put onscreen, and after what they do to violate the Cajuns' homestead, you can't help but root for the Cajuns! Yes, I cheered every time another of these louts bought the farm. It's like a bargain basement version of Deliverance, except we're cheering for the other side.

There are also many unlikely moments in the film. When the guardsmen "borrow" the canoes, before shoving off Poole orders his men to remove their helmets and "clip to them your belts." Firstly, there's no easy way to clip a helmet to a belt. Secondly, just why would he make such an order? The answer is clear: for plot reasons!! It makes it more credible when Poole gets shot in the head. In terms of military procedure it's completely senseless.

Later, on their interminable slog through the swamp, they encounter, in prominent view, the leg traps meant to maim them, which have been set by the Cajuns. Now, Cajuns may be simple folk, but they are not so dumb as to set ABOVE the water line, in clear view, a trap meant for people.

One of the guardsmen disobeys an order from Casper, and obeys only when Hardin puts a knife to his throat. Then they go on as if nothing had happened. In any real military situation the disobedient man would have been immediately placed under arrest. Later the group starts fighting about who's going to be the leader, as if chain of command were something to be argued about, like kids deciding who's going to captain the ball team. Granted that this is the Guard, where one does not expect the standards of the regular army to be in play, but still, this is not how the military works. But it does make the movie work. Later, Spencer and Hardin, knowing they are being hunted, both bed down to sleep without setting watch turns.

By the way, Hardin would be a more believable character if every other word out of his mouth was not the F bomb.

The best scenes are at the end, when we get to hear some good zydeco music from the Balfa brothers, and to see what's involved in slaughtering a pig. However, there is too much in this movie that defies credibility to make it even halfway believable.

I have enjoyed much of Adam Sandler's work in the past so I expected at least a few laughs from this movie. I waited. And waited. And waited. But there weren't any. The script is as bereft of humor as a sinkful of lukewarm dishwater. Everything moves along quite nicely from scene to scene, but none of them are funny. The plot is clearly an attempt to resurrect Broadway Danny Rose, but without Woody Allen's comic genius the attempt fails. The most impressive thing about the movie is the number of A-list stars that were recruited to provide commentary on the fictitious Wexler (a device lifted right out of Broadway Danny Rose). Skip this movie and go watch dough rise instead.