Reviews

Not quite sure what I can add here that hasn't already been addressed, but I watched this on Amazon Prime recently after not having seen it for several years. The film is a showcase of Elizabeth Montgomery's breadth of talent, and she positively shines; this is a must-see for any of her fans. It seems to me that the film itself is degrading, and thus needs some kind of restoration to it. Nonetheless, the film as a stylized re-telling of the legend of Lizzie Borden is quite effective, offering an explanation as to how Lizzie might / could have committed the murders. Listen for the sinister intonation when Lizzie addresses her stepmother as "Abby" (only occurs once in the film). This is one of many nuances that Montgomery delivers that confirms my assessment of her performance as "beyond exemplary".

I have to state my biases up front that (a) I really enjoy the "found footage" genre and (b) I was a long-standing fan of "All My Children" and have always enjoyed seeing actors from that show in other roles and other projects. That said, I found this film to be incredible. There is a seemingly normal / natural start to the film (a graduate student documenting a lady with early- to mid-stage Alzheimer's Disease), but the descent from "natural" to "preternatural" to "supernatural" occurs relatively quickly with building taut suspense and effective jump scares throughout. The use of the camera is highly effective in pinpointing the characters' experiences unfolding at the same time as for the viewers, including precise and accompanying dialogue that to me would be very likely in such situations (e.g., trying to challenge / justify how they could be witnessing inexplicable events, how certain things "just aren't possible"). Jill Larson is absolutely outstanding in this unique leading role; Anne Ramsey is also outstanding, and her Sarah Logan character needs to be recorded as one of the best examples of a courageous antihero. Despite a couple of weak plot points (e.g., how we meet the sheriff, and the departure of one of the crew members), to me the film was well done, highly effective, and would likely be enjoyed by those who also like the "found-footage" genre.

One of the "buddy study" or male-bonding genre that follows the reunion and subsequent days of two childhood friends from Sicily, Antonio and Agostino, after 15 years of no contact / lost contact. Beginning in Sicily when the two characters were boys, the drama unfolds as the two regain contact. Agostino is a truck driver; Antonio's life path isn't easily specified by occupation. Rather, it is specified only briefly, identifying the places he has lived. The commonality among them is a drifting of sorts. The film examines their reunion as Antonio hitches a ride with Agostino on a delivery from Antwerp to Venice, at first uneasy, while we learn about the two boyhood friends and how they come back into each other's lives. We see them work through the unknowns of how / why their friendship stopped along the road to recovery. Great cinematography in the stunning physical geography, actual footage along the Autobahn, in truck stops, and a ferry terminal (among others), further enhanced by the outstanding and realist acting by the two male leads.

A very good independent film definitely worth watching. All three leads were outstanding, and I found myself never taking my eyes off them. Settings take a back seat to dialogue and an at-first-somewhat-seemingly-preposterous premise, well-written and thoughtful (Stewart Wade excels with his writing and direction). That dialogue is key, so hang on to every word by all three leads, be alert to cadences, pitch, tone, and nonverbal communication that comes from them. This is not just "another indie gay film"; it's making an extraordinarily powerful statement about socialization. Patrick Zeller as Beau is amazing, in showing us bit by bit how Beau evolves and is challenged by his norms. In some regard Zeller may have had the most difficult assignment here, portraying how Beau's known worlds and conventions are challenged and the difficulties he has in reconciling his own evolution. Paul Mascua as Caden is excellent as a free spirit who knows himself thoroughly. Leah McKendrick is unparalleled as Lily, conveying the journey of her character with such power. Kudos also to Shari Belafonte and Alexandra Paul for their excellence in minor roles and in being a part of Say Yes; I can only imagine how many scripts they have seen in throughout their careers, and I would like to think that their participation stemmed from their recognizing and participating in a unique gem of an indie.

A difficult subject matter, but one that needs to be filmed, told, and played over and over again. Well done, poignant, grim, but absolutely worth watching.

A wonderful indie film - amazing on-location cinematography; excellent acting and outstanding vernacular dialogue, always real, never stilted or pedantic. The acting of the principal leads (Gregory Lay and Dan Simon) is outstanding. I felt as if I were watching a true "slice of life" story of two BFFs on a particular weekend where both are on "tilt" due to recent break-ups. This is coupled with professional challenges that make their weekend go awry, then giving way to a much-needed catharsis and greater self-awareness. Excellent score also, comprised mostly of piano music that complements the scenes very well.

I intend to view this film again and perhaps add or change to this review, as I am of the opinion that Mathews was trying to power-pack several different stories that were all connected. Such connections were sometimes explicit, other times highly implicit, and even on occasion imaginary or inexplicable, possibly all told in real time, possibly juxtaposing past flashbacks with present actions, hence my partial title of "uneven". The film is also surreal on a number of levels, aided by on-location filming, contrasting scenes of bright sunshine (where actions and events of the characters almost seem unreal) with dark-of-night montages and interiors. Jonny Mars is excellent and conveys complex dimensions of Alex, no easy feat given the character's largely taciturn manner.

As an avid fan of thrillers (horror too, if the horror is necessary to the story), I came across this title and, thanks to Amazon Prime, I was able to watch it. There's something to be said for the "backwater" / "out camping by the lake" horror genre, but "Backwater" is vastly different from the prototypes associated with that genre (e.g., Friday the 13th) - by a long shot.

I thought this was a very good film. The story is seemingly innocent in that the boyfriend/girlfriend duo decide to camp out by the lake, and, upon hearing a shout (they reference it as a "scream"), they begin to investigate, with each of them running into someone else. What starts off rather slow picks up in terms of tension, horror, and convolution about 1/3 of the way through. I jumped a few times, was mildly grossed-out a few times, and didn't see any of the twists coming 'round the bend! The style of filming is mostly single-camera, though frequently scenes take place at night and in thick darkness, and sometimes it was difficult to see these scenes. Definitely worth checking out!

This film came on Turner Classic Movies recently, with the host mentioning that it was the film's debut on that channel, and the first film Patricia Neal made after winning the Oscar for Hud.

The story concerns a privileged upper-class blind woman named Alison (Neal), her husband Eric (Jurgens) and her younger sister, Robin (Eggar). At first all seems perfectly OK, given the circumstances, but bits of conversation are dropped here and there, darting looks are thrown here and there, and soon we realize that there is something lurking beneath the veneer of a privileged life. Alison, in the final stages of her second pregnancy, suffered a fall in her home that rendered her blind, though as she states early on, it's not that her corneas don't function, it's that her brain won't permit her to see images (paraphrasing here). Apparently this happened in 1959, hence the "'59" in the title: The story then takes place in 1964, five years after this fact, over a time period that seems to be about a month, or maybe two, when Robin re-arrives back into the lives of Eric and Alison after what appears to be a 5-year absence.

The black-and-white cinematography adds much to this film, such that I believe if it were in color, it would not be as effective. The language, dialogue and subject matter covered was ahead of its time, at least by U.S. standards, but stylistically, this matches a number of thrillers and socially-conscious dramas that came out of England in the early- to mid-1960s (e.g., Victim, Pumpkin Eater, etc.).

The first part of the film, set in London, sets up the story beautifully, and it isn't long before we start to realize that something's "up" - the carefully-worded dialogue, with certain key words and phrases omitted, or the glances of the blind Alison behind her sunglasses, to the beat of her words...you see that all that glitters is not gold, so to speak.

The second part of the film takes place at the characters' country house, located near a coastline; It is here that the set-up for what could be a riveting tale, as depicted in the first part of the film, loses steam and slows to a crawl, such that the conclusion is neither climactic nor satisfying; this is a shame, because it could have been done much better. Besides that, I do agree with the comments made by a previous observer, including that the grandmother doesn't seem quite grandmotherly (and actually, I'm sort of confused as to why this character is even in the picture).

Nonetheless, the acting is superb by all the leads, and particularly by Neal, who carries the film, in my opinion. Pay attention to every movement she makes, whether it's with her eyes, her head or her hands; listen intently to every syllable she utters, for it is through her character that we understand the real story of what has happened, or is happening, to these three people.

The movie is based on a book by the same name by Francoise des Ligneris, which is available online.

I have shown this movie in entry-level college geography classes, as it is first of all a fine film, but second because it so clearly illustrates concepts of acculturation, assimilation and the American "melting pot." The story certainly could be told, and re-told, from a number of other perspectives (i.e., another city, another ethnicity, even a different starting decade), but despite its length, Avalon captures so much of a way of life in our country that has eroded throughout time. College freshmen, on the whole, seem to really enjoy this film, and papers that I ask them to write on it have been thoughtful and provocative.

The story is multi-generational, and centers on an immigrant arriving in Baltimore, MD in the early 1900s. It then traces his life forward through the generations, all the while noting how the impact of being in a new country changes him and his descendants. The cast does a fine job, Levinson's direction is superb, but pay attention to subtle nuances! This is one of those films that I can pick up something different every time I watch it.

Highly recommended.

OK, so I acknowledge Susan Sarandon is my favorite actress of contemporary times (have you ever seen her in a bad role?). I further confess to having a penchant for political-legal-type dramas/thrillers, and I will even go so far as to say that movies with Southern lawyers have a special fascination to many (Atticus Finch, anyone?), perhaps because portraying Southern politics tackles greater sociological and civil issues that would otherwise carry less meaning.

The Client is one such movie, and my favorite Susan Sarandon role. A great credible story, alternately epitomizing Southern politics while also placing the lead character as one who comes from that politic yet challenges it at every turn. Sarandon pulls this off beautifully as Reggie Love - in a world of men, particularly white southern men, she is somewhat weary of the cronyism to which she will never belong, yet solid enough in her own strength and belief in her convictions to hold her own against the mean ones.

Great story, but if you've not seen it recently, watch it again, and particularly focus on Sarandon - approach it with these comments in mind, noting how she's totally "on" with this character and that character's surroundings, it'll add to the film's multi-dimensionality.

A true classic, the prototype for the lesser-explored genre of "political thriller." I had never heard of this film until 1988, when Sinatra re-released the rights to it. At the time, I was in Chicago, and dragged a friend to a theatre to see it. The next night I went back with another friend, and the next night after that, I went by myself. This is the ONLY film I have ever gone to a movie theatre to see three times in a row, three days in a row. It has been with me ever since. Arguably it is one of the best films ever made; top-notch acting, superb direction, riveting story. If you ever get an opportunity to see this film in a theatre, in the dark on a big screen, do so.

See the original before you see the remake. Remember when Hollywood remade 1963's "The Haunting" in 1995 or so? BAAAAADDDDD....

But back to the Manchurian Candidate. It is a film that introduces many questions as it tells its story; it is a fascinating, complex study of psychology and politics, and it is a forever-frozen-in-time moment of a depiction of American life in the early 1960s. It is a film that opinions and discussions will continue on for as long as the participants can muster...so many interesting observations and angles presented.

While all the acting is excellent, Angela Lansbury's performance is the one that stayed with me that night when I left that small theatre in Illinois, and though it is rare to find female characters in classic films in such magnanimous positions of power, her performance undoubtedly will go down in history as one of the best, if not the best, of such performances. No one has come close.

Many, many great comments about the film are contained in these summaries and on the message boards, attesting to the film's stamina and excellence. But if you've not seen it, do yourself the favor of watching it first...maybe even two or three times, as there are so many details to pick up on, then come in here and read through all the interesting observations, peruse the message boards and join the discussions. You'll find you'll learn so much more about the film!

I too would like to know if these episodes are floating around! This show - along with Sonny & Cher and Carol Burnett - made being a kid growing up in the 70s very, very fun.

I do not remember much of this show other than I really liked it, never missed it, and was mad when it was canceled. Oh yes, I also remember the "Bionic Watermelon." Makes me laugh just thinking about it now....

This movie mesmerized me from the first time I saw it as a young boy, and back in the days before VCRs, direct TV and cable, I would wait for it to appear in the tv guide every so many months so I could watch it again.

A true classic if ever there was one. Cohesive story, superior observation of the human condition, and - for its time, 1960 - phenomenal special effects. I know the movie and the story backwards and forwards by now, yet that doesn't diminish its genius or its storytelling.

Forget newer mimics. In this case the original is by far the best and will always remain so. A talented cast propels the story. One of the few out there I'd recommend buying to hold onto forever.

A

When this movie first came out, it was generally viewed unfavorably by movie critics, and in certain markets it didn't stay long in the theatres.

I've long been a fan of thrillers, but I paid attention to the critics on this one and didn't see it in the theatres. I caught it on HBO and, after seeing it, I wish I had seen it in the theatres. I do not know why movie critics generally snubbed this film - I thought it was a taut, edge-of-my-seat complex thriller, and there were a few times that I jumped out of that ol' seat, yelling, "YIKES!" (or something to that effect). Sure, it may be a bit unrealistic, but as far as storytelling, directing and acting, it's a very good piece.

Both Robert Downey Jr. and Annette Bening were outstanding; I was riveted by their characters and couldn't take my eyes off either of them during the film. Bening shows her great range and depth, playing the heroine/protagonist whose life turns upside down in only moments and spins wildly out from there. Downey also shows great versatility in a role that he is not normally associated in.

If you enjoy the work of either of these two actors, or if you enjoy complex, mind-bending thrillers, ignore the critics and watch this. I only wish I had had the opportunity to see it on the big screen.

What a wonderful, charming movie that centers around the journeys of a gay man of Arabian descent as he travels from his home in Normandy to Marseilles.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, not only for its unbiased treatment of homosexuality, but also for the stunning scenic shots across France, which only added to the overall beauty and enjoyment of the film.

Wonderful all the way around.

I watched this movie again recently after not seeing it for about 10 years, and it's held up very well. I remember after seeing it the first time, that I kept saying to myself, "What?", but upon seeing it a couple more times, I figured it out.

Overall pretty good, kind of a mind-bending mild thriller. It looks as if the director trimmed out some of the original movie that might have helped fill in a gap or two here.

Nonetheless, it is an interesting film with good acting, particularly with Ellen Barkin. Interesting supporting cast, too, that includes Julian Sands, Isabella Rossellini, Jodie Foster and Grace Jones.

7 out of 10. My favorite dialogue in the film: "I'm your guardian angel", to which the response is, "I'm almost tempted to believe you."

This movie was based on an actual case, and it appears to relate the components of the real-life story rather well, though most of the acting is rudimentary and the characters are portrayed as one-dimensional; portraying them this way was either (a) due to limitations in writing, or (b) necessary so that the plot could progress without any holes.

In any case, Elizabeth Montgomery completely steals the show and compels the viewer to keep watching. Her performance in this movie is reason enough to watch it, and is testimony to her profound and multi-dimensional abilities as an actor. Elizabeth Montgomery is one of a very small subset of actors that can make virtually any role "go" (a/k/a believable, compelling, thought-provoking).

I just had the pleasure of watching this movie again after not seeing it for probably 15 years. It is still positively hilarious and funny. Good fun for all - harmless, slapstick tongue-in-cheek humor. If you haven't seen it, by all means watch it. If it's been awhile, watch it again...it's a good movie to know and say the words to!

For those who enjoy psychological thrillers and who have never seen "Night Gallery" - find them and watch them. This show was on television when I was only six, yet I can still remember how utterly spooky, horrifying and terrorizing some of the vignettes were. Granted, not all of them were great (some were a bit silly), but there were ones that I would still find chilling today. Some gems include Joan Crawford and Tom Bosley in one story about eyes, Roddy McDowall as a spoiled heir to a large fortune, and Agnes Moorehead, Rachel Roberts and Grayson Hall with the shadows on the wall. I could go on and on...you can also find information about the series at www.nightgallery.net. And -- some of the paintings done for the vignettes are downright creepy! All in all a great series, and it's a shame it didn't last longer.

They don't make 'em like this anymore, and, sad to say, we Americans don't have as many actors and actresses of this caliber anymore today, either. Nevertheless, despite its spotty campiness, unintentional funny moments, borderline flashback sequences, storyline holes and generally predictable plot, this is a spectacular film, especially considering the era in which it was made.

All the performances are strong, intense and excellent. Perhaps the best ones, however, are given by Olivia de Havilland and Agnes Moorehead, who have been more or less associated or stereotyped in other venues. Yes, this is the same Agnes Moorehead who is probably best known as Endora from "Bewitched," but it only serves as testimony that she was one actress who could steal thunder with any role.

Overall, the story is a good one, and realistic to the location given. The story would absolutely not work, for example, in a large urban area. The film is great fun, and knowing how the whole story plays out is an excellent reason to watch it again, as you know what the characters know. Sit back and enjoy the brillant acting on all counts!

I'm not sure why Diabolique (1996) received the poor reviews it did; the acting by the principal cast members is certainly excellent, the plot line is intriguing, and the suspense is maddening.

This movie, however, is actually a remake of a 1955 French film titled "Les Diaboliques" (literally "the fiends"), and while the 1996 version tells the same story updated for modern life, the 1955 original is the better of the two.

The 1955 version left a bit more to the viewer's imagination, and it incorporated more subtlety. It was in black-and-white - perfect for this kind of taut suspense thriller.

In the 1996 version, however, Kathy Bates' character adds a greater dimension to the entire story that was not prevalent in the original.

So - my recommendation? If you've not seen either of the versions, see them both (check out the 1955 version first!). What is most interesting is watching two very talented actresses (Simone Signoret from the 1955 film and Sharon Stone from the 1996 film) handling the same role with their own unique skills and interpretations.

A great 1980s movie using 1940s film-noir techniques. Watch it again just to catch all the nuances, subtle glances, what's shown and what's not shown. While other Mamet films are excellent, this is his shining beacon. The acting is superb, the cinematography is superb, the musical score is superb.

Reading comments of other viewers corrobates the fact that Fargo will become a cult classic. Some view it as a cinematic masterpiece; others view it as the complete opposite. Still others view it as a leg-pull. Regardless, the story, acting and reality base of the characters cannot be ignored. It is a black comedy, a genre which generally doesn't lend itself to gut-wrenching guffaws, yet it is also a thriller. It may take a couple of viewings to truly appreciate the brillance of the Coen brothers and of the cast. Locally, Fargo's release and popularity caused another Coen project, "Blood Simple," to be re-released in theatres around town. Watch them both -both are excellent, but Fargo, coming 13 years after Blood Simple, will show that the Coen Brothers have refined their craft, not re-invented it.

This is one of those movies that is great fun for everybody at any age. I can remember seeing it for the first time at about age 7 or 8, and the slapstick humor only gets better each time I see it. This is a wonderful, funny movie that is great family viewing. In a modern era when colorful words and sex scenes prevail in all genres of film, it is refreshing to watch a simple, funny movie that derives its humor without the use of such techniques. Although it is a bit silly at times, I highly recommend all adults watch it at least once with their own children, nieces, nephews, etc. - it's equally enjoying to see how young people react to the film!