Reviews

I just watched "Xanadu" for the first time and enjoyed it. I found it to be better than its lowly reputation. Don't be like me and put off watching it for that reason, because I thought it was worth watching if you like musicals. Of course the plot is not that complex, which is standard in musicals, because much of the run-time is necessarily spent on musical and dancing montages, but this is a good musical in my opinion. The dance scene between Olivia and Gene is as good as any you will find on film. And I didn't mind the roller skates as seeing them roll around was actually kind of cool and had a smooth feeling to it. There's some cool scenes, effects, and music, of course not everything works, and there's probably a throw everything at the wall and see what sticks mentality here (especially the ending), but there's a lot to like regardless.

Give it a try if you like musicals, the actors, or the time-period. And watching Xanadu now was interesting as it sort of felt like a bridge between the older era and the newer era, as seen by the older Gene Kelly and older music and clothes, which were combined with the newer 70's, 80's styles. (I know the 80's is now considered old, but for me, I don't feel that way). And now that Olivia has passed, it even seems a little plausible that she could be a muse sent down to make merriment. R. I. P.

I just rewatched "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" for the first time since seeing it as a kid in school and I am left with the same impression, which is that this film is disturbing, bizarre and rambling, but mainly disturbing due to the way the film and Wonka treat the children. I get that the kids are supposed to be brats and that there is supposed to be some lesson in here for kids to be better behaved, but come on, kids are kids, and of course they would be excited to tour a chocolate factory. Why on earth this supposed kids musical decides to maim, mutilate and kill off the principal child characters is beyond me, but I found it disturbing as a child, and I still find it disturbing as an adult. Be forewarned, I wouldn't recommend this film for young children. 2/10 rating.

I liked "Live and Let Die"; it has held up well for me. I have seen it several times over the years and I am still entertained by it, that is what makes the Bond films so classic -- their sheer entertainment value and rewatchability. This film is unique and has a flavor all its own obviously tinged by the other Blaxploitation films of the era, but in a good way, they created something interesting here and tapped into subconscious fears and vulnerabilities we all have. Bond here is in a role reversal, where the white man is the vulnerable one, the minority, while the blacks seemingly have a vast organization where whole neighborhoods are in on it, just waiting to pounce. This is probably overblown but it shows well that feeling one can get when in the minority, and all the others are working against you, a feeling usually experienced by blacks. It's really a pretty provocative film when you think about it, and the voodoo element adds extra intensity and fear. It's worth a watch, definitely a 70's movie, and the entire cast was terrific. My rating 8/10.

I am surprised by all of the gushing reviews for "The Verdict" from 1946. I found it to be a pretty bad film and almost incomprehensible. I had a very difficult time paying attention and following the plot; I still don't fully understand. I gave it a 2/10 though instead of 1/10 solely due to the compelling Joan Lorring who I enjoyed here; it's a shame she didn't get more better films to do after this. But I have little else positive to say here. The picture quality was also poor, though I realize that this is an old film. And I don't enjoy coming on here and criticizing films, especially very old ones, but I felt compelled to do so as there were hardly any negative reviews on here and I honestly very much disliked this movie overall and found it very inaccessible, slow and incomprehensible and I think many other viewers may share my sentiments.

"A Global Affair" is one of the better Bob Hope films that I've seen. I like the messaging here which was optimistic and pro-family. He tries to show the positive side of things while also making some quips and gibes about our respective nations. He looked great for his age and he or whoever cast this film included a bevy of beautiful women as well who played along great. The cinematography is a little dingy but I still enjoyed the film. I rated it a 7/10. I'm glad I caught this obscure film on television. Give it a watch if you come across it sometime. And I liked that it didn't overstay it's welcome at only 84 minutes.

"Never Say Never Again" is a sort of one-off action adventure film which takes Bond into an alternate universe so to speak, where he must once again stop Largo and recover some nuclear warheads. There's a whole backstory here which others have written about, how the rights to the "Thunderball" story were shared, thus allowing this film to be made. As a stand alone effort it is not bad and better than many action films. It is very watchable for the most part except for some computer graphics. However, as a Bond film, it is not one of the better ones. But, I wouldn't focus on comparing it to the other Bond films, just watch and enjoy it for what it is, a somewhat campy 1983 action film which ranges from semi-serious to self-parody in tone. And I liked seeing Bernie Casey here as Felix and Barbara Carrera was great as the villainess Fatima Blush. My rating: 6/10, as it felt 15 minutes too long. Oh, and the music by the prolific French composer Michel Legrand was good as usual.

"Diamonds are Forever" from 1971 is one of the more fun James Bond outings. Nothing here is too serious, but it nevertheless has a good linear plot, nice locations, good acting, good music. Really it's a solid film all around with some memorable scenes and lines. I've seen it many times over the course of my life and still enjoy watching it. I rated it an 8/10, but maybe I should raise that rating cause it's actually in my top 100 films list at number 65. I would recommend it as one of the better films from the 1970's. As said, it still entertains, and that is a film's number one job, though I know it's not perfect. But, I thought Jill St. John was one of the better Bond girls and Charles Gray gave Bloefeld some personality, and I still think of him as that character due to this movie.

Unfortunately "Heart of Stone" is another poor Netflix production. I am now giving up on all Netflix produced films as I was made physically ill from this film due to the flashing, frame rate, shaky camera, overexposure, and direct lights into the camera. These very poor production qualities terminally sink this film, along with most other Netflix films. I am sad that there are virtually no good films being made today. While I like Gal Gadot, she could not save this poor production and its poor script. There really should be warnings on these films for people with certain illnesses. I had heart palpitations from this film and had to fast forward and stop it. The 4k frame rate, not resolution, of 50-60 frames per second is hard on the body and should be banned by the FCC. Filmakers, please go back to 24 frames per second and no filters, good scripts, tripods, good sound mixing, etc. I'm tired of this garbage being put out there. And 1080p resolution on DVD is perfectly fine, no need to mess with it. Instead, cameramakers and the FCC are pushing this 4k standard even onto broadcast television. It will all soon be unwatchable for me as I have a neurological condition. I will have to watch only old DVD's. And there are too many commercials on tv anyway, some programs are sped up to fit more in. In closing, if you don't have Netflix and want to see something comparable to this film, just stare at a fluorescent light tube for an hour and you'll get the same experience. 1/10 rating, obviously avoid, rewatch any James Bond instead.

"Cartegena" from 2007 was an interesting film. Based on the subject matter you know you're in for a somewhat tough watch. I found it on streaming and I watched it all the way through when I wasn't planning to, so it must be a certain level of quality for me to do that. I don't want to heap praise on it though, there were points that I didn't care for, namely the overall bleak tone, which was a choice, to only show the seedier elements of life there. Having every character be some degree of loser makes it tough, but I know that the world is rough out there, however I can't reward a film for simply showing that. What I do find positive about "Cartagena" is the novel location, good cinematography, good acting, and chiefly the spotlight that the film shines on the disabled and their caregivers, which touches many persons in this world and is a difficult but important subject. Both the patient and caregiver have their own unique difficulties, worries, and thought processes; I have personally experienced both sides of it. And, I think this film has an important point that men can be caregivers too and should not be excluded from such work out of some kneejerk reaction. Both men and women need each other, they are complimentary, and sometimes just the other's presence and help with daily activities can make a big difference in enlivening someone's life. Bottom line: worth a watch, but 6/10 rating.

I did not enjoy "Somewhere in the Night" at all and almost turned it off, but I stuck with it since it was there. I am a film noir fan, but the genre, like all genres, has good films, average films, and bad films. "Somewhere in the night" is solidly at the bottom of the barrel. I would not recommend it, even to noir fans, as I am one and did not enjoy it. Like so many Mankiewicz films this film is too talkative, too self-aware, too long and slow, too incoherent, and too highly rated. I have nothing positive to say, and that is rare for me. I am shocked by how much I disliked this film, I went in expecting at least an average film noir. My rating: 1/10, avoid.

I stumbled across "Moving Valentine" and watched it on Tubi today, and I have to say that this is a pretty good independent film and shows that it is possible to make a well made, functional, and entertaining movie at this smaller scale. Everything was solid, the camerawork, the sound, the editing, the acting. Well done, 7/10 rating for me though I am a little reserved with my ratings. Worth watching, and I hope to see the actors in future films. And I could relate to the roofing guys hustling to get some work, it's all very slice of life but soon turns more interesting and dangerous. Watch and see.

I had long heard about "The Dark Knight" but had waited 15 years until now to see it, and that long wait just makes the disappointment that much worse once you find out how mediocre this film really is. I thought the sound editing was terrible, with too many harsh pointless tones so common in Nolan movies. The film editing was atrocious, with scenes jumping quickly from one situation to the next while not showing the crucial action. The action direction was thus likewise poor making action scenes difficult to follow. The plot was also surprisingly abstruse for a comic book film, in a bad way. The script was not developed well enough to care about any of the characters. Bale mumbled all his lines so I could barely understand him. I thought Aaron Eckhert did best but I knew his role would be so depressing. Really the entire Batman universe has become much too bleak and depressing, and Nolan piles on top of that fact with the most bleak ending possible -- stating our hero must become the villain to save everyone. More inverted morality nonsense. Really wouldn't recommend this film to anyone, poor production, poor script, poor morals, basically zero to recommend it, almost no women in the film as well. Avoid, 2/10 rating.

"Pitfall" from 1948 is a new film to me and I found it to be a solid entry in the Noir genre. The writing and cinematography is good, the actors are good, though as others have noted Powell is maybe a little too dispassionate and static, however it's one of those stories that wears on you even in its short runtime and leaves you without a very satisfying ending, though perhaps it achieves more realism this way with a tinge of melancholy apropos to film noir. In summary, I liked it and rate it a 7/10 and it was the right length, under 90 minutes. As others have said, definitely a forward looking film, it felt like a 50's film made in 1948.

I liked "Zaza" from 1939 even though it is a simple story and almost like a play. The situations and characters felt believable and Claudette is at her most adorable and flirty in this role. There were much less dance and musical numbers than I expected, this is more of a drama about backstage life. Worth seeing if you like the old-timey feel and costumes which are now dated but pleasant nonetheless. I'm rating this film a 7.5 rounded up to 8/10. And Cukor's direction was excellent as per usual, and nothing too offensive here, so a good watch if you like older films or are a fan of Claudette's.

I saw "Chain Reaction" on streaming so I figured I give it a watch and because the topic sounded interesting, but I now see why I had never seen this one before. It is all very forgettable and formulaic with little to really draw you in. And I feel somewhat bad saying that because you can see a lot of money and effort went into this film, but the end result just isn't great, you always feel like you're watching a movie, it never overcomes that hurdle, which great films do, where you forget you're even watching a movie because you're so lost in it. And likewise, I felt bad for the actors Keanu and Rachel, they earned their pay here having to run all around in the cold winter weather, through snow, icy water, on vehicles, it just seemed like the director was trying to torment them. Not even a hat or gloves! Sorry, it's a fail overall, though there may be some interesting ideas here, but it's underdeveloped. 3/10.

"The Matrix Resurrections" lived up to my modest expectations for this sequel. I am happy with it. It continues a good trend of decent sequels including: James Bond, Top Gun, Jurassic Park. I rate all of these recent films 7/10. While this Matrix has some rehashing and remaking of the original, that is to be expected and it is really just enough to advance the plot. And there is a plot which is good. The meta allusions were just right too, not too many or too much. There was a little less action in this installment, but that is ok as the actors are older and I don't need constant action. The actors were all great as well. And what really puts this film into a good category is that it was filmed well, very watchable, not too much flashing or quick cuts. It's nice to be able to watch a film and not get a headache or eyestrain after two and a half hours, (the third matrix failed at this). 7/10 rating.

While I'm not really a fan of the original "Mary Poppins" as I found Mary too acerbic and the whole tone too sour, but I had hoped that this remake would correct those deficiencies, unfortunately it did not. I think that "Mary Poppins" could be a great musical, but it just isn't in my opinion and it leaves me sorely disappointed every time I watch it. Though I did like Emily Blunt as Mary, unfortunately she didn't have more to do. But, Lin-Manuel Miranda was not able to fill Dick Van Dyke's shoes. Beyond those issues, my main gripe with this film is the poor cinematography which is prevalent in many Disney movies now. It was too dim and gray and the resolution seemed grainy and gave me eye-strain perhaps from 4K cameras which result in far inferior film. Please, go back to traditional looking film, this new style is garbage. 2/10 rating.

"The Social Network" is a vastly overrated film in my opinion. After waiting years to finally sit down and watch it I was very disappointed to find this lauded film to be unwatchable. I had to stop 10 minutes in due to the awful music, stressful vibe, annoying dialogue and mannerisms of the lead character. I won't be watching it again. 1/10 rating. And the Oscars further discredited themselves by awarding Best Music Oscar to this film. This was one of the worst soundtracks I had ever heard in a film, up there with "Death Wish 2" and it wins an award for that? Is good taste really that subjective?

"Huckleberry Finn" from 1974 produced by Reader's Digest is a sort of sequel to 1973's "Tom Sawyer" produced by the same people. Both films are very good and in my opinion the best film adaptations that I've seen. I am glad that they were made and they still hold up and are worth watching. I think both of Twain's stories do an important job of showcasing a time and place in American history, and his stories now themselves hold an important place in American history and culture. So, I am glad that these perhaps improbable film projects (by Reader's Digest of all things?!) were made.

"Tom Sawyer" is probably a better overall film and story, with a little better flow and pace, however "Huckleberry Finn" is still good, especially so due to its able taking on of mature themes such as slavery. There are a few slow and silly parts but it is forgivable as the film overall takes one on the rafting adventure along with Huck. The 1960 film "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is also good (especially Tony Randall) but it has more of an old Hollywood studio feel half of the time whereas the 1974 film is shot on real locations and has a more tangible feel.

I largely forget the novel "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" as it has been so long since I read it but I recall it have lots of tough language and dialect. I am glad that the 1974 film largely removes that factor. Twain purists may disapprove, but slight sanitation does improve the story in my opinion. So, overall I am glad that I finally watched this entire film as I had seen part of it on television years ago but I couldn't remember the exact title or year and I actually had trouble finding the film again until later searching on IMDB (thanks IMDB).

Obviously, this film did make an impression on me as I remembered it years later, that often is the best way of telling which movies are impactful -- do you remember them (in a positive way). Overall, I don't mean to oversell this film, its not perfect, but it is good and worthy of still being watched today, as is the 1973 "Tom Sawyer" film. I rated both 8/10.

"Mansfield Park" from 1999 is a well done period drama based on the eponymous Jane Austen book. It is well cast and acted and has appropriate settings and the script is well written. I rate this film an 8/10 and would recommend it to those who like historical dramas. My only complaint would be the occasionally odd camera-work. But overall it does work and it does feel surprisingly contemporary to both its original time period and the current day as well. I'm glad that I took a chance and finally watched this now twenty-four year old film. If you're interested in it just give it a go, you could do a lot worse.

"L. A. Confidential" is another overrated Oscar-winning film which is currently #115 on IMDB's top 250 list for some unknown reason, probably because it is so self-referential to Hollywood. However this mediocre film is nowhere to be found on my own personal Top 250 list as it offers me nothing really new for the genre or any thought-provoking ideas. Though "Mulholland Falls" (the prior year's film which "L. A. Confidential" tries to ineffectively copy or spoof) is on my list at spot #125. "Mulholland Falls" is a much better film and I would recommend it instead; I know that's not the consensus but that is my belief. All I could think the whole time I was watching "L. A. Confidential" is why aren't I just watching "Mulholland Falls", why bother with a cheap imitation. While "L. A." is well made technically, it lacks heart and depth and feels like it's too invested in spoofing or winking at Hollywood and L. A. I also didn't care much for the music, storyline, or characters. I rate it a pedestrian 5/10.

I just watched "Torrents of Spring" from 1989 for the first time ever and I liked it well enough so I rated it a 6/10. I don't think that it will appeal to everyone but if you like costume dramas or period pieces then you should like this film. The cinematography is wonderful as are the settings, and the costumes and women are beautiful; these factors alone make this a film worth watching. However this is a rather stiff film whose script and action feels lacking at times and whose characters are thinly drawn. It feels as though we the audience are viewing shapes and forms on the wall of Plato's Cave more than anything else, and perhaps that's the intention given the opening and closing scenes which frame this tale as being largely inside the main character's head, whose memories and id haunt him. As he ferries across the water, so must he skate over and brave the monsters, passions, desires, and shortcomings of his own mind and soul, even now as an old man and perhaps even more so after death ferrying across the river Styx. This esoteric opening and closing where the leading man is portrayed quite literally and figuratively as the Fool, reminiscent of the Tarot mystery, is not really necessary in my opinion and it is almost too on the nose. In summary, this tale of love, passion, and temptation of one man for two different beautiful women is oddly dispassionate at times though lovely to look at, but at least it doesn't fall into the trap of solely being cheap and wantonly sensual.

I am surprised at the low rating and poor user reviews of the film "The Suburbans"; it is only a 4.2/10 on IMDB. I rated it a 7/10, I think it is better than that low user rating suggests. Is it some deep epic? No, but it is a nice light film that captures the more bright and optimistic mood of the time period around 1999 and also the preceding years. Does that mean there is no conflict or troubles in the plot? No, of course there are, but nothing seems as dire as it could be if filmed today. The audience is not left depressed and shell-shocked here, nor is it filmed with some dim gray filter. It is not really laugh out loud funny but it is droll in its own way. While not a film for kids, it is a decent film for adults, especially those who miss those old days, its music, or are fans of the cast.

This was my second viewing; I remember seeing it on TV years ago and liking it, so I just bought a cheap used DVD copy of it and watched it again. I am glad to have a copy of the DVD as this is the sort of film that is never on TV anymore and may become lost to time and forgotten about. Worth getting if cheap, though I wouldn't pay top dollar for it in my opinion. And Will Ferrell was in it but had a small part which reminded me of the beginning of "Old School" filmed 4 years later. I think he even had the same TV wife (Perrey Reeves).

I had low expectations for "Queen of Outer Space" as I had heard that it was not very good, but I did find myself enjoying it, especially in the middle after the slow beginning. Zsa Zsa is a hoot here and this is an undeniably campy film but I think it is worth watching. It is sort of like an episode of the later "Star Trek" series except with perhaps more hormones raging and less discipline. In fact there are many similarities detectable, such as the music, sound effects, staging etc. And I liked the flat screen TV's which have now become a reality. Though I recognized the spider bit from "World Without End" which I just saw. And in betwixt all the silliness the film does say something about the effect of beauty, women, and men and what is desired or not.

I think the film was also intended to poke fun at the space program in general, especially the phallic rockets and all the rich and scientific men's quest for dominance, remembrance, and greatness (which occurs yet today), while being unaware of how silly and desperate they really are as their virility wanes unto inexorable death. But I guess that is the biological imperative of the male of the species, to explore, to create, and dominate, even if it spreads war and exploitation and environmental degradation at great long-term cost, but who cares right, we'll figure that out later. P. S. The queen in the film was probably correct, they should make a sequel showing most of the Venusians killed or exploited with their planet ruined for mineral mining after full scale earth invasion and subdual. Sorry for my pessimism, the film is better than I write, 5/10 rating.

I liked "A Song to Remember" and consider it to be a good movie which I rate a 7/10. If you like biopics, art, music, or old films then this is for you. And it is a very reasonably accurate retelling of Chopin's life, at least based on the encyclopedia article I read of him. So, I disagree with most of the reviews on this board. This is a solid old film worth watching, lots of good piano music, good colors and sets. And I really liked all the actors here, they did well. Not sure what all the gripes are about on this board. Just for that I'm bumping it up to an 8/10, a good musical film, which is somewhat rare.