Reviews

I saw this originally in 1969 when it was released. It was the Paramount sanctioned cut and it was good - just nobody in the theatre. I bought the directors cut on dvd some years ago and watched and watched again today as I'm going thru my dvd's.

I still-to this day- feel this picture got a bum rap. It's not a perfect film, but definitely NOT the bomb the critics made it out to be. Musicals in 1969 were box office poison. But there's comedy in the film that is humorous. The film cost $25MM to make and the money is all there on the screen: from the sets and costumes to the stunts. The music left is vintage WWI songs that everyone knows plus a couple of original unremarkable but unoffensive numbers from the music hall sequences and truth be told, it's nice to hear Andrews voice before she quit singing. The sets and costumes and cinematography are first rate. Edwards directions is a bit prejudiced as he makes sure he shows his star/wife with the best possible light and in the best possible direction sometimes, maybe, at the expense of the costars - but who cares? Andrews looks AWESOME!!!! The only bad thing? Editing and continuity: very easy to spot reshoots and inconsistencies. But who gives a damn, this is a fun flick. More people need to enjoy.

That's what you get here: A simple life ~ A simple story. Doris and James alive and in the prime of life doing what they do best >> Champaign comedies. He's a doctor and making the bacon; she's his wife who's supposed to stay home, cook, clean house, have babies. All's good until she get a job by accident. Then his life is turned upside down. I saw this when it first came out and it seemed normal to me. Then we had Vietnam, Womens Lib, Watergate, Assassinations. Now we're smarter and truthfully, this doesn't hold up real well. (maybe that's why I had trouble finding it). But grab a tv dinner, watch it in front of the tv and laugh at the jokes. It's a good time. Spoiler alert: If you try to watch it with the kids, they may roll their eyes and tell you it's lame LOL.

I like WW1 & WW2 films but this one is really special. It deals more with the stories of the men rather than the blood and guts of the war. You see the actual war thru the supporting players who push the main characters to be ruthless to win battle and conquer the world, Intertwined is the characters and how they have lives that really matter more than the big picture.

It all comes together in the final half of the film when they are dealing with the trench warfare and Diana Krueger's desire to get to her husband regardless. When the impromptu cease-fire happens on the front for Christmas, you get a rush of satisfaction as they all fraternize to celebrate the holiday.

Yes, it's a foreign film but one that transcends the barrier of language. This was a real event so ... if they could sit thru it for an evening, you can sit thru it for a couple of hours. You won't be sorry once you've viewed it.

By the way, the technicals are pretty good as well. Special shout out for the costumes and the cinematography which are outstanding.

This is the story of one woman's quest to swim the straights of Florida between Cuba and Florida Keys. I have two questions after watching #1- Why? And #2 - Who cares? Benning and Foster do much better than their roles are written. Benning a little on the hammy side and Foster is ok, but she doesn't have a whole lot to do. I can see why it was a direct to tv feature (yes, I KNOW it was in theatres a week before streaming), but it would have been a disaster if it would have received a commercial release. Holds little interest for anyone except the diehard swimming fan and believe me, no one else really cares.

Not sure how to feel about this pic: and this (with KILLERS) was one of the movies I was really psyched to see this season. What I watched was (for me) I don't know what. On the plus side; Vanessa Kirby as Josephine did what she could with the role that was written. If everything would have been on par with her performance, I would have given a stronge 7 maybe 8. BUT IT WASN'T. Let's start with Phoenix. Napoleon in other films has been a brooding self centered man (Brando, Herber Lom, Rod Steiger)Phoenix doesn't come across that way. He wants to be brash and arrogant, but i got the impression that he didn't know where to go with it. The boring screenplay was like reading a grocery list in monosyllable. The musical score was just BAD. I'm lost why there were no sections of the 1812 Overture included in the soundtrack. The cinematography, designed to be grainy in some points made my eyes hurt. Knowing it was Scott directing, I was expecting another GLADIATOR. Instead I got another EXODUS GODS AND KINgs.

Great film. Not sure how I want to describe it after that. It's a brutal story, but Scorsese doesn't dwell on the brutality side - he focuses on how the brutality affects the characters. In particular, It focuses on Lily Gladstone and how she deals as her family is slowly killed off. There really isn't any gore or gruesomeness in the film. The worst scenes have been in the previews so if you've seen the previews, that's what you will see in the film.

This is pretty much a Gladstone movie: she is not a supporting player by any means. DiCaprio is good as the catalyst to keep the story action moving. He's used as the pawn in DeNiro's clever game to get the oil fields from the Indians. His makeup is subtle but convey his sliminess. DeNiro, when he does drama like this, always does a tremendous job in the role: it's a "Trumpian" type role when he manipulates you to do the job, then he makes sure you're the fall-guy for the issue. It's a well made film that tells a fascinating story. All technicals are top rate.

The only issue I had was with the ending: not a bad thing/not a good thing -> just something I wasn't expecting and i'm not going to tell you what it was - only that I had never seen that type of resolution before and, in hindsight, it was a pretty nifty way to wrap the story.

Can't wait to see it again when it comes to AppleTV.

Just not sure where to go with this film. If the film is asking for sympathy - I have none. I know exactly what I am putting into my body. I ask the doctors what I'm getting and why I'm getting it. I've done that all my adult life and I would expect others to do the same thing.

From a narrative point of view the story switches time frames, personal view points and subject matter rather frequently and abruptly - this is not a documentary to watch piecemeal but rather all at once.

In so far as the oxycontin subject matter, there is no mention of the government or the FDA. While the Sacklers bear some responsibility, where is the admonishment for the Govt? The FDA? The prescribing Dr? Didn't those doctors warn the patients about this drug? Is there not a warning label by the pharmacy explaining the addictive properties? Where was discussion concerning lawsuits against the Doctors (hint: I didn't hear any. Why? Because doctors would simply quit their jobs and we'd have socialized medicine in this country now.) The protagonists of this film, chose to go after the big dollars rather than the people that also benefitted: the gov't in the millions of tax dollars that were generated; the doctors who had their patients coming back for more of the drug and when they couldn't get from him, they took to the streets. There are a lot of unanswered questions for a documentary that is 122 minutes long.

This is not a great movie - when you get down to it, it's not even a good movie. It's a popcorn movie at best. The best thing it has going for it? Margot Robbie as Barbie: she does channel the role well and when her world turns upside down, you genuinely feel sorry for her. At the other end of the scale - Ryan Gosling as Ken. Gosling is good at stretching into roles, but no matter what - Ken was an androgenous doll and Gosling can't stretch the role anything more than that. He looks like a character out of ZOOLANDER and whenever he is on the screen, i was cringing in my seat. There are definitely funny moments: my favorite? When Ken runs into the ocean to surf. Definitely a woman's movie from the first preach to the final cast roll - it got old fast and the screenplay didn't seem to have much substance after the "I am woman" speeches. I thought it was me, but there was a lot of kids in the theatre and they all appeared to be bored as well. Sorry Greta => This is not your ticket to the Oscars.

Thank you for bringing Indy back-after the last one, I thought you buried him. As long as Harrison Ford is around, you can always bring up an Indiana Jones saga. I'll never say anything bad about Ford's performance as Jones. Honestly believe he should have at least been nominated for RAIDERS. He never fails to please and does so again here. But the story is uneven. Sometimes speeding manically along and then when it slows down--it stops. Bringing in Waller Bridge was a good idea to keep the story lively although I'm not convinced so much of her conversion from thief at the end. Maybe the next will push her back to the dark side and the emergence of a new "indy junior" would be a good thing. Mads is a good villian-you will really want to hate him at one point. Unfortunately, Teddy is no Short-Round. He lacks the likeability and thats a hole in this story: he's not charismatic nor is he really likeable so you almost don't care what happens to him other than he is integral to saving Indy and Wombat towards the end. Indiana Jones is a character that really shouldn't die: he is the 1930s version of Luke Skywalker: to make him go away will almost be unAmerican, but we need to get to another hero and the next jones should be the bridge that this one wasn't. Still - I would rather pay money to see this flawed jones than pay money to see half the films that are also coming out this year.

I just left the theatre where 3 people around me had to be woke up from their sleep by the person they were with. I dozed off several times. Maybe I'm not into the DC universe, the story was difficult to follow - at times silly, at times down-right stupid and at times, plagiaristic. The main (?) plot of the story appeared to center on the death of the Flash's mother - it bookends the movie. But you never are given a clue as to the resolution of that. Then you have the very obvious error where someone dies in the middle of the film which should have ever lasting effects on the balance of the film, but oh well - not sure how that one ends up. On top of that, they parade thru every person whos ever donned a DC superhero outfit - even Nicholas Cage. Nicholas Cage????? Please! EF are fair; acting is marginal; story and screenplay are poor at best. Someone should look up the meaning of continuity. Advice: don't waste your money, it will be on TV in 45 days.

I am going to stop watching these kind of movies. It pretty much hits all the stereotypes that one can imagine and it elicits prejudices against stupidity that exists in the world today. Here is a family - so poor and destitute, they need to have 3 children to share their misery with. PEOPLE! OVERPOPULATION IS RUINING THIS PLANET! The boy is irresponsible and loses the girls only pair of shoes so they switch shoes for school so they don't have to tell the father who will beat them. The girl never gets home on time, so the boy is always late for school. He finally gets kicked out for tardiness but, lo and behold, one teacher stands up for him. Hurrah for teach!!! They owe the grocer but he still gives them food. They're 5 months behind on the rent, but they still keep on living there (how does that happen in the US? I'd love to know) The mother is ill and can't go to work, but the daughter takes care of the baby. The boy wants to race and get his sister the sneakers so they will get back to normal (how long is this? And dad hasn't noticed???) The boy goes to register 5 days after the entry deadline but again, lo and behold, they let him register. He wants to come in 3rd to win the shoes, but golly darn - after tripping and falling - he comes in first! Don't worry about the fact that he has a 2 foot stride while all his competitors that lose to him have a 3 foot or great stride. BUT THE BEST PART!!!!! Dad decides to become a gardener with no skills and he takes the boy on his first day on a bicycle 10 miles away from home where to "good" houses are. He's too stupid to articulate himself, so the boy has to explain what they do. Then after a full day, on the way home, they have an accident because the bike they are riding has no breaks????? WOULD YOU NOT HAVE TESTED THIS ON A FLAT SURFACE RATHER THAN A DOWNWARD INCLIDE BEFORE YOU PUT YOUR CHILD ON THERE WITH YOU??? A bunch of stupidity and nonsense that I have no patience for. Because of all of this, that 87 minutes seemed like an eternity. This film is a good argument for population control.

When I watched TAOK, it didn't affect me as this film did. Because everyone knew they were making a movie, it somehow removed the event from me, that these were people. But this story of a man looking for the killers of his brother to understand what happened digs deeper. You meet people who are so proud that they cut heads off tied up people or they stabbed and tortured, you think that you've pretty much seen it all except, in some cases, they are so proud of their work, they've written books and illustrated them. When the families are confronted with the stories and evidence, they simply shrug and say "we didn't know". That's bull****. This film pretty much evokes the prejudice in me: all the people interviewed appear as inbred, addled idiots, who have no clue about what is going on. If they were in the US, (which one man seems to think he should be rewarded with a cruise to America for his murders), they would be in an institution, prison, or dead. I pretty much have contempt for everyone in the film except Ramli's family. The filmmakers achieved what they set out to do: inform and motivate. There is no sympathy as you are told how the murders occur and the witnesses are proud of their complicity with the events. Still, from a film making perspective, it's a fascinating piece of film, worthy of it's accolades.

I have now seen 3 films of this person which is 33.33% of his filmography. The films are preverse; bear no resemblance to film entertainment and are just boring because there is little to no cohesive narrative. It's almost as if he takes great pleasure in shocking his audience. Some of the grotesque items in this film: a boy that kills a cat with a pair of hedge clippers; the family barking like dogs; a man who picks up a vcr and smacks his son's lover in the head with it because they had sex which is what he got the girl there for in the first place. The whole premise of the story is the parents don't let the children off the property in order to protect their innocence, but that's a stupid concept and borders on child abuse. Rather than educating them, they lie to the children: they tell them "Zombies" are flowers and other stupid aspects. There is NOTHING entertaining about this film - in short - it's more like audience abuse. It's unfathomable that this picture received the praise it did. It was the greek entry into the Oscars in 2010. If this is what the Greeks think is Art and Entertainment, then the past Greek culture is probably rolling over in their collective graves. If this is what AMPAS considers superior film fare to be nominated for Best Foreign Film, then someone has to be on the take. This is NOT film - this is NOT entertainment - this is just crap to be avoided.

I had never seen Gale Storm in a movie: I knew she made some, but just hadn't seen any. Then I came across this one. The story has all the classic elements: kind hearted, widowed dad taking care of his daughter the best he can. He owns a saloon in the Bowery to support him and his daughter who works in the saloon as a singer. He has political causes that on the surface are a source of his problems but the underlaying cause is an evil sister-in-law who wants to take his daughter away from him and give her a respectable life (which will rid her of any potential embarrassment). If you do come across this, don't go into it thinking that you'll find the meaning of life - just sit back and enjoy the fun and the music -- there's nothing deep here.

There was a big hoop-de-doo this year because no woman was nominated in the Best Direction category - THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY!!! This is absolutely a waste of time. Documentary-like, the stories are boring, some creepy, most meaningless. A total waste of time and talent (?). I paid $4.99 to watch this on Amazon and am seriously considering asking for my money back. There is nothing entertaining about this. The is nothing "great" or even "good" about this picture - it's normal. The acting is "normal" no standouts. The behind the camera personal perform their jobs - there is nothing out of the ordinary about this. In short - wait til the film is available on a free service - don't waste your money on it.

It seems like this film was written directly for Streep to play the center role. Kate Gulden experiences all shades of life's rainbow in this picture; from being the "picture" of health-live and energetic to the final end. Streep ate up the scenery and took no prisoners. Zellweger does a fantastic job playing the daughter caught up in her own with with "Mom issues" only to be "forced" to come home and deal with life. As it turns out, it's the best thing for her and she comes off a better person for the experience. The picture was much better than I was hoping it would be thanks to these two women and their performances. The only real downfall is a contrived script and a lukewarm direction; but these two women did the best they could with what they had to work with. And their best is good enough.

The purpose of a documentary is to, first and foremost, educate people on a subject matter. If it entertains - all the better. This I'm not sure what it does (other than put me to sleep). According to the trivia pieces, the film makers were so afraid for their lives, half of them are uncredited. This was just a bizarre piece of film-making that you have to see to believe -- except DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!!! Seriously, if you enjoy things like watching a fat man cry while someone mutilates his stuffed teddy bear, or an old man walking around hocking up a lung, then this is your kind of film. Otherwise, don't waste your time.

What a great little film - albeit more of a woman's picture, but still it has all the elements that are missing in so many films today. Mrs. Harris is a real person - she has optimism; she's older; she has a brain and knows how to use it AND she has heart and soul. She has a dream to own haute couture and goes about making that dream happen. Along the way she meets, befriends and wins over a variety of characters. This is like a kinder, gentler version of THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA. The writing is kind and sweet - nothing that is far out; nothing that would contain any great surprises - its just a sweet little story. Leslie Manville is perfect as Mrs. Harris - you wouldn't mind if she were your mother or grandmother and for all her good-heartedness, you want her to be rewarded. You're not bowled over with $100MM worth of special effects - this is just something to sit back, relax and enjoy. That's why it only made $31MM instead of $500MM. Bravo to Focus pictures.

To say this is a bad picture is an understatement. Evidently in the year 2022-2023, entertainment is measured by the amount of vomit and crap that flows on the screen. This is a PRIME example of how some idiots at the Cannes festival thinks this is great film and the masses follow in droves. How this picture got nominated for Best Picture is really beyond me: The acting is horrible; there is no direction; the narrative has so many plot holes that that you could use it to strain food; and the ending is non-existent -- like they ran out of money and just folded production. The premise to the story is stupid=this could never happen in real life or nothing even close to it. I didn't pay to see this movie and I still feel conned; I can't imagine what someone who may have paid $12-$15 dollars would feel like. The only word that describes this picture is HORRIBLE.

You idiots that are writing scathing reviews need to consider the time when this film was made - This was before political assassinations; before mass shootings; and before this country was forced to "grow up" because of all the atrocities that have been forced upon our population. It was when people got married BEFORE they had sex. This is a simple suspense story - no one but Hitchcock could have done the film as well. Our world has passed this film by - there are no more fairs and with the advent of social media, the plot may have been solved in 1/5th the time with much more trash talk. But you wouldn't have the elegant Audrey Hepburn and the suave Cary Grant. 60 years from now, you won't know Rhianna, or most of today's celebrities. Most of them from last year aren't even recognizable. Grant and Hepburn were stars in the firmament. They contributed and made Hollywood the exotic, mythical place that it used to be. The present stable of people have turned it into trash pile that it is today. How many pictures will anyone remember that was made last year. So if you trash this film, I'm guessing you're somewhere between 12 and 24; the comedy is still there; the suspense is still there; the only thing that isn't there is the comic book version to lead the kids thru the storyline.

There is a full 2 hour movie wrapped up in this 29 minute short. Hindsight is always better that dealing with the present. Why did Omer push the envelope so far. If Yunis knew his visa status why did he push? The factor boss KNEW Yunis' situation because all the other worker were illegal immigrants as well (why were they hiding in the freezer and then when the coast is clear - the clear out of the scene?). Why destroy the bicycle afterwards? A very good film that cries to be watched at least one more time and probably several times after that. I never figured out the recurrence of the prostitute either.

What a beautiful film. Its a story about cancer and how devastating it is. These two sisters open their salon to help women that have been diagnosed. It's an extremely intimate story but still is told as best and sensitively as possible. When you look at these women in very frank conversations, you can't help but empathize their situation. Especially when it gets to the point of chemo and their hair. These sisters have provided a haven where women can come and receive support. The interviews even brought tears to my cold heart. These two sisters will truly be rewarded some day for their good deeds.

What a great documentary about one of the more colorful historical figures of our time. I grew up during this era and heard of MM on the news all the time. I heard what the news was fed to report. Seeing interviews with this woman is very refreshing to see just how colorful she really was. She called it from the hip and didn't mince words. She was one of the first if not "the first" to put the Watergate blame where it belonged. The film deals directly with the Watergate incident rather than go into the historicals of MM life.

The documentary is a lot of things: fun, controversial, at times, confounding. One thing it is not: boring. This is a fast 40 minute watch. Make time for it on your schedule.

Why was this film made???? It wasn't to make money. It wasn't to entertain people. I can truthfully say "move movies like this and you can lock the theatre doors now - you WILL be going out of business". This needs to be on MASTERPIECE THEATRE or some PBS entry because it's not meant for real people to see. It's meant for the phonies and fakes who want to say "I've seen culture". When I see something like this - it makes me mad, that so much has been wasted putting this on the screen. And if you don't believe me, you should have sat in the theatre with me as I was the only one in there!!! The costumes and art direction were ok - not outstanding. The screenplay was dreadfully boring and sedimentary. The acting was ordinary which substantiates the fact, 2022 was one of the poorest years for film in some time. Obviously, Nighy's nomination was there to fill out the field - this is definitely not an Oscar winning performance. The best thing I can say about this film is : "this is one hour and forty five minutes I will never get back again....."

Terminally ill little boy whose only wants to be a fireman and the firehouse that makes it happen for him. There is more heart in the 18 minutes of this film than a lot of films have in their 120 minutes. The first encounter between the fire chief and the boy's mother is used to define the all-business chief only to have it disappear when he encounters the sick child. I guess it just goes to show - the human spirit is not dead - it has just gone to Sweden. This should definitely have won the Oscar that year - can't imagine anything more heartwarming or more accomplished. Try to find this film when you can.