Reviews

I first saw this movie when it played briefly in Los Angeles in 1970. I soon purchased the soundtrack, and after many many years, the movie, first on VHS, and recently on DVD. I know of no film which captures puppy love more honestly and tenderly than this. Mark Lester of "Oliver" fame and Tracy Hyde deliver restrained and believable performances. But it is the soundtrack, mainly songs by the Bee Gees, that makes the film truly beautiful and memorable, and can move sensitive viewers and listeners to tears. Maybe not one of the best films ever, but the one I would be most heartbroken to lose and not be able to replace. It has gained a loyal following over the nearly fifty years since it's theatrical release.

I knew almost nothing about this film going in, and at 77, was going mainly because my relatives and their children invited me. I was almost immediately drawn in, and found I was on the edge of tears the entire film; good tears! This film got just about everything right. I loved the way the film was told from each major characters point of view. I think it was a tearjerker in the best sense, because I don't think it was trying to be overly cloying. Jacob Tremblay was virtually unrecognizable in his excellent makeup. But for me, the highlight was the boy who played his friend, Noah Jupe, who was so believable and real, that by the end, I was more impressed by him than Tremblay. Having worked with special education children my entire adult life, I found this film to be the most involving film about elementary age children I have ever seen, and purchased it immediately. Julia Roberts and Owen Wilson were good in their supporting parts, and a second viewing was even better than the first. It is about kids, but is more for mature adults who want an intelligent and sensitive picture, a rarity in this day and age.

While I have to admit I kind of liked this film better than Moonlight last year, I can't believe that this film was even considered for best picture. I am a 77 year old male, and I think this was more a woman's film, as the lady I watched it worth loved it. I never bought into it at all. Maybe it is because I am old enough to have seen "The Creature From The Black Lagoon" which seemed to be a partial inspiration for this film. I have seen 6 of the nine so far, and this IMO was the weakest. "Get Out" was far better, but I guess the Academy wanted to give Guillermo Del Toro his due. The performances admittedly were very good, but I just couldn't take it seriously.

Having seen Pascal Laugier's "The Tall Man", which I absolutely loved, I had heard a lot of praise for his first film, "Martyrs", and finally saw it today (2017) on DVD. I can't believe all the reviewers who praise this film lavishly. It is over 90 minutes of torture porn, and while there is a revenge motive, there is little if any satisfaction to be gained by the victims or the viewers, and it is IMO, the viewers who are the ultimate victims, despite the clever twist at the end. One reviewer said that those who like "Hostel" will probably like this film too, and vice-versa. Well, sorry, for I really liked "Hostel", but this exercise in non-stop cruelty and torture was so over the top as to make it hard to care, and nobody could survive the tortures shown for ten minutes, let alone years. Huge disappointment.

After sitting through two and a third long hours of "IT" recently, being bored mostly by the predictable CGI and the usual jolts in today's so called horror films, I just watched "Get Out". I wasn't expecting much, as the DVD had 5 mediocre to awful previews. But almost immediately, I became intensely involved by the plot and quality of this film, which mixes social satire and racial issues brilliantly. This is not like most horror films today, but rather more like suspense thrillers as "The Stepford Wives", "the Harvest", or "The Tall Man". The scares are not like jolts, but rather stem from the nervous feeling that kept me glued to the screen, anxious to see what will happen next. I just learned this was the director's first film, though it seemed to have excellent production values and built suspense seamlessly. I love stories where something strange is going on, and the mystery is gradually revealed, like the original "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers" or "Night Of The Living Dead". For those not looking for gore or shocks, but rather suspense, this should satisfy most of you. But if special effects are your preference, maybe stay away.

"A Cure For Wellness" demonstrates what happens when a very successful commercial film maker is given the money and freedom to make a film from his own idea, without much in the way of studio controls. The set up and cinematography are terrific, and the atmosphere is creepy and involving. This is actually my favorite kind of horror thriller, where something sinister is behind what looks on the surface like a wonderful setting. This was successfully done in Shutter Island, for example. But after a terrific first hour, the movie begins to drag, and then, rather than becoming more focused, becomes far fetched, and way too long relative to its importance. When the credits finally rolled, I ran to check the box office and budget, and apparently the film was financially a flop, as I expected. In this category, I think "The Tall Man" was a far more involving, provocative, and satisfying film than this one, where the viewer is intentionally meant to be unsure of what is going on and why. A generous 6 for me.

This is one of the many iterations of the "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers" theme of duplicates replacing originals. The title refers to the lake where some kind of vortex is the meeting place of two worlds. The film manages to really build suspense through the first hour, and is quite well done for a TV film. But like so many of these stories, the explanation is far fetched and a bit of a letdown. Having Haley Joel Osment is a plus, in a supporting role, but by the end, what might have been a 9 or 10 gets a generous 8, mainly because it was so captivating for the majority of the film.

As a huge fan of "Stand By Me", I joined the crowd of first weekend viewers of this Stephen King story, at least the first half. I was somewhat disappointed, for a number of reasons. First, like too many movies today, there is too much noise and CGI. The fact that the technology has become so advanced, should not mean that it is used more than needed. There are so many jolts and excessive morphing scenes that would be totally impossible of any creature, that it becomes more like a ride in an amusement park dark house, with ugly images and creatures trying to grab you, along with loud noises. It's not scary, really. There is nothing psychologically disturbing. Second, while it may follow the book, having about a dozen kids make it hard to clearly differentiate their identities and characteristics. There was, admittedly, some humorous moments, and many were likable, but unlike "Stand By Me", you don't get to care much for more than one or two of them. Third, too many scenes were very dark, which may make scares easier, but hard for the viewer to see. And personally, Pennywise was too advanced mechanically to be believable, and hence really scary, at least for me. I really wanted to like this film, and I didn't hate it. It just suffers from what so many genre films suffer from today: Overdoing the effects at the cost of the story and depth of the characters.

I didn't see this when it came out, and just saw it over 25 years past its release. As I loved "The New Kids", from 1985, which starred James Spader, I purchased a 2 movie DVD that included this film. It started out well, and had a really intriguing premise, where an uptight young professional meets a free spirit, Rob Lowe, who takes it upon himself to loosen up Spader and get him to enjoy life more. For a while this works well, both entertaining and often humorous, but as it goes on, it gets more and more unlikely, and ultimately seems totally implausible. Curtis Hanson is a fine director and has done far better films, including "L.A. Confidential", and "The River Wild", the latter one of my all-time favorites. This is really a "B" movie, which is not an indictment, but while it was watchable and fun, it kind of tailed off as it often went over the top. First half 7, last half 4.

I didn't read the book, but the friend I watched with did. Yet we both had the same reaction overall. The first third was excellent, very involving, interesting, with shades of Stand By Me and Alien, but the last 90 minutes became less original, and by the end, I no longer cared much about the story or the characters. Having not read the book, I found the story extremely complicated, with so many characters, I kind of lost interest. It needed more of the scenes with the kids, so their characters' continuity would resonate better. My friend was also rather disappointed after liking the first half, so it probably isn't vital to have read the book. Left me feeling dissatisfied.

I really wanted to like this film, as it was a present from a long time friend, and as I watched I realized I saw this, or parts of it years ago on one of the movie channels. But like many others, I found the movie to be very disappointing. It is cloying while trying to be sentimental and amusing, but is overdone constantly, seeming forced. While Anton Yelchin is good, he is obviously older than 12, and the script he is given is trying so hard to be cute, while still being "naughty", it never rings true. Also, Robin Williams, who is supposed to be mentally retarded, or challenged, seems too wise most of the time, as is the black lady in a detention facility, advising Anton about life. Because almost nothing ever rings true, it is almost impossible to ultimately care about the characters enough to become truly emotionally involved. Needed to be done in a more realistic and less "cute" manner. I guess some Duchovny fans were able to praise the film, but I can see why most reviews were negative.

Really looked forward to this film, although newspaper reviews were lukewarm, since I have always liked courtroom type stories. (My father was a lawyer). And with actors like Robert Duvall and Robert Downey Jr., how bad could it be? Answer: Not bad, really, but still disappointing. First, it was soooo long, nearly two-and-a-half hours, while the story wasn't all that complicated. Second, the script was what I call overwritten, meaning that much of what was said was very complex and sounded contrived, yet spoken very quickly, so it made me feel that the actors were just reciting their lines, not speaking from the heart. I think Duvall was better than Downey overall, as I find his glib style, similar to his awkward moments in "Chef", to be annoying after awhile, even obnoxious. Plus it was fairly predictable, even though it took almost forever to get there.

First off, let me say I am 76 and have never been a fan of "comic-book" super-hero movies, including Superman, Star-Trek, and the Marvel comics. (though I was and am a collector of the EC Horror comics from my youth). A younger friend of mine told me about "Logan" being quite good, and that it pays homage to "Shane", which newspaper reviews also noted. Well, it so happens I went to see Shane when I was 12, sixty-four years ago, and it was the first film that moved me to tears and showed me what a movie can be as a total experience. So after seeing how well received this film was, I was willing to see it, and I have to admit, despite the intermittent bone-crunching violence, which seemed over-the-top, the film held my interest, had some genuine heart, and was quite entertaining, and even enjoyable at times. Admittedly, for me, showing scenes of Shane was the highlight, along with the surprise dialog near the close. Thus, a 7, overall, which probably would be a 9 or 10 if I were a Wolverine Fan and in my 20s-40's. The only caveat for me is that the violence is so frequent and overdone that it actually seems counterproductive, as it is so extreme, it would only take one hit to knock out or kill an opponent, even a "mutant". Oh well. Enjoy!

Wow! I was really looking forward to seeing this after it won best picture, as it obviously was groundbreaking in dealing with a young black boy growing up gay. But as it turned out, this film managed to be minimally involving, probably because there was little dialog, and it was split into 3 sections, where not much really happened. I think the problem was that they chose characters living in the lowest echelon of the black community, where drugs and prostitution are rampant, so that the characters were not particularly interesting. Also, it didn't really deal much with the gay aspects, so ultimately, it was rather boring, and didn't result in the viewer experiencing much empathy beyond the first section. The young boy barely spoke, but suffered greatly. But then suddenly it shifted to young adult, so a lot of the emotional connection had to be regenerated. Anyway, like "Manchester By The Sea", this was a major disappointment, though a little less boring, and very well acted. "LaLa Land" should have won!

I only gave this slog a 3 because the acting was decent and the scenery was pleasant. That critics could rave about such a relentlessly depressing, slow, monosyllabic, endless film is beyond my comprehension. I am 76, and am not looking for action or simplistic violence, but by the middle of this bore, which I saw on DVD, I and my 2 other seniors were making jokes about how boring and slow this film was. There was not one moment of genuine humor, nor were any of the characters really interesting, except maybe the 16 year old, who looked 20, and behaved and talked more like a 24 year old. Even Casey Affleck's performance, while realistic, was not especially demanding, as it was the operational definition of monotone. Always morose. What a monumental disappointment for me, as I had been really looking forward to it, based on critical raves.

Finally saw this today (March, 2017), and like others, enjoyed it thoroughly, and resent the extremist PETA for hurting this wonderful film about what wonderful animals most dogs are. I am 76, and found myself intermittently laughing and in tears. PETA and their fans won't rest until no animal is ever eaten, while comparing the eating of chickens to the Holocaust. Anyway, I found this to be one of the best and most enjoyable family oriented films of the last few years, and can't wait to purchase it as soon as it is available on DVD. I sincerely found it to be far better than either "Manchester By The Sea" or "Moonlight", which were lauded more for their themes than for their entertainment value in my opinion. Notice that about 75% of the reviewers here rated the film 10. Compare that to "Manchester", whose acting may be better, but not the enjoyment or emotional intensity or humor. Thank you Lasse Halstrom.

I was shocked and pleasantly surprised to see the overwhelming number of negative reviews here, expecting the Star Wars fans to heap grandiose praises on it. There is little original here. The pacing is better than the prequels, the score still gives chills, and the effects reflect some of the improvements of late and the 3D, but the plot and dialogue is SO simplistic, and the movies length is out of proportion to the story itself, which is mostly a rehash of the original triad, updated. While there is no vulgarity, the dialogue is still aimed mainly at the middle school level, and the violence, while sanitized, is prevalent throughout. For die-hard fans, negative reviews will have no effect, but if you are not in that category, you aren't missing much if you miss this.

This comedy-drama contains what the great critic, Roger Ebert, used to call the "idiot plot", where a secret is involved that, if revealed early on, would shorten the film to a half hour instead of nearly two hours. Nevertheless, "People Like Us" is ultimately a very satisfying and enjoyable film. Chris Pine plays a single man about 30 who learns his father has just passed away, and has left him a package with $150,000 to deliver to a sister he didn't know he had, from an affair. He seeks her out, while really wanting the money for himself, and finds she has an 11 year old wise guy son from one of her many previous one-nighters. The film really takes off from there, with a fine cast featuring Elizabeth Banks and Michelle Pfeiffer, and has some wonderful moments, as well as some hard to believe ones. But in the end, I believe most viewers will be glad they saw it and consider it a good, or even excellent film.

I like Bollywood Films for the most part, and especially "Like Stars On Earth", "Outsourced", "Slumdog Millionaire", and "My Name is Khan", but "3 Idiots", while certainly entertaining and having a message that is a corollary to "Taare", it suffers from uneven storytelling, going from silly, broad, caricatured comedy one minute, to serious, realistic, highly emotional moments that elicit tears. Some characters are so over the top as to be almost Keystone Koppish, and others very genuine, and still others, rather inconsistent. Still, overall, an entertaining watch with a very worthwhile message to follow your dreams and make your work seem like play.