Reviews

As other reviewers have stated, this is a non-typical episode, which has a degree of charm and lighthearted fun. The music is a tip-off; a bit Pink Panther. Hugh Cronyn gets an opportunity to depict a playful character that you find yourself rooting for. However, there a number of Plot Convenience Playhouse aspects: a rental car that is immaculate, even down to the air filter?? Cough. Cough. AND, if the thief had a lawyer worth his salt, he'd walk: McGarrett effected Assault, and Illegal Search and Seizure on the suspect (the shoe/soil); it would not be accepted in court - all the rest was circumstantial evidence.

An episode that's worth watching purely for fun. We get to see Elisha Cook, Jr., do his classic "I'm terrified" schtick repeatedly, and Mary Anne from Gilligan's Island as the sweet young innocent who pushes the plot along. The solid 10 star rating is due to Jay Novello's droll, over-the-top performance as the aging, dipsy thespian. And we're all in on the joke, including the rest of the cast. It's an enjoyable episode as we watch an actor poke fun at the acting profession (and the snobbery toward television) - especially by such a solid fellow as Mr. Novello. Efram Zimbalist, Jr. Plays straight man quite well, as does Ed Burnes.

Talktalktalktalktalktalk. Everybody talks all the time simultaneously; what passes for "screwball comedy" is just buzzing confusion. The plot lines are obscure (why should a public execution will improve election outcomes? What was the take-away from the wildly incoherent woman jumping out the window?); there's maximum chaos and minimal connection between the characters.

The always-handsome and usually amusing Cary Grant is a calculating villain with no redeeming qualities, his charm well under radar, and acting surprisingly stiff; Rosalind Russell was absolutely the wrong casting choice: her delivery is dramatic rather than droll, as "comedy" requires. Imagine the difference if Ginger Rogers had been cast!

There's no chemistry between Grant and Russell; the Big Finish of Russell's sudden adoration of a 14 carat creep is inconceivable.

Nobody is concerned with anyone but themselves, and perhaps that's intended as social commentary, but it makes it impossible to take an interest in the outcome of the characters' lives.

We're supposed to be amused at the repeated arrests of Ralph Bellamy's character - which would have ruined a man's reputation, back in the day.

Yikes. Scenery chewing utterly out of control between Cage and Cher, especially in the first 20 minutes of their onscreen meeting. Really quite terrible. Olympia Dukakis sulks through the entire film like Hamlet's ghost. Lots of shouting and arm-waving that's supposed to reflect the "typical Italian" family dynamics - nasty stereotyping; imagine doing that for any other culture.

Good exterior photography, although a very sanitized version of NY City - even though in 2007 isn't wasn't what it is today (check it out when Olympia and the fellow from the restaurant walk past the neat, solidly closed garbage cans).

From a psychological standpoint, the idea of a brother with resentments "stealing" his brother's intended bride has some ugly implications. Not at all healthy. If these were real people, some serious mental health counseling would be in order.

Sorrowfully I must agree with the dissenters. This film misses the mark in 50 different ways. Not one laugh from any of the viewers present. One or two smiles when Walter Connolly was on screen as the flabbergasted editor. No sympathetic characters, no real chemistry between Lombard and March (and the fist fight in the hotel room? Yikes.) Poor Ms. Lombard's "zany" frenetic energy doesn't seem to fit the scenes in which she evokes it.

The only excitement generated by the film was the brief scene with Margaret Hamilton (a shout went up from the crowd!!! :-D ).

What happened to Ben Hecht? There's neither comedy nor the irony that he can, on occasion, create magisterially.

Odd (artsy? "meaningful") shots of major characters hidden behind tree branches, etc., which seemed weird. "We're all hiding something..." right.

The story is confusing; Lombard's character is grasping and foolish (no thought of what happens when the truth is revealed?), and the Doc - the usually likable Charles Winninger, falls into the same category, and is also a lush. The ending "funny" .. wasn't.

For comparison, there were more chuckles in the first 10 minutes of Never Say Never Again, which we watched shortly after.

3 stars is a generous rating.

Nasty, conniving Paulette Goddard lies and schemes and tricks wealthy lawyer Ray Milland into marrying her. Will do anything to subvert her "competition," Virginia Field (prettier, better-dressed, doesn't lie or cheat -- unlike our "heroine"(?). Goddard gleefully (desperately) goes so far as to recommend that the other woman (threaten to) kill herself. Her malice nearly backfires on her intended (victim). Clearly the writers had a low opinion of women. Before the halfway mark I was rooting for the blonde.

Milland is suave and handsome, much like Wm Powell, in this effort. Field is cool and looks FABULOUS in the Edith Head designs, Wm Bendix lightens the mix with his friendly and likable face.

Gladys George is the real standout -- the film only comes alive when she's on screen.

Cinematography: beautiful. The streets of Saville, the energy of the festival, the dusky blue evening shots; marvelous.

The plot: convoluted to say the least. And extraordinarily slow-moving; it seemed as if it would never end. At the conclusion I had no idea why the (original, off-screen) crimes were committed, nor the reason for the ones which occurred in the first episode. As a modern-sensibilities-driven American, it was more than a little difficult to mourn the second-to-last victim who died while in the middle of torturing an animal.

The characters: Dysfunction Junction. Senor Falcon's general lack of affect was not (ISTM) adequately explained by his substance abuse issues. His infatuation with one of the suspects bordered on the creepy/stalker. None of the characters were likable or sympathetic. The author must be extremely cynical about the human race (not saying it isn't accurate, just too depressing.)

I LOVED the villain in this episode -- although I anticipated the identity of the kingpin. The character was a wonderful counter-type to the usual mucho-macho gangsta. The cold, cool, calculating type -- including the clothing -- was perfect, including the can-do attitude. I was VERY disappointed that the solution removed an otherwise formidable and capable villain whom I would have enjoyed seeing as an ongoing character.

Jeez, we had 85,000 episodes of chasing around Red John, couldn't this character have lasted a little longer??

Oh dear. IMDb wants a couple of more lines of text. I am Oak Owl and I approved this message. :-D

From two minutes in anyone over the age of 8 will know the plot and the outcome. There is Zero chemistry between the nominal "romantic pair." Boring, uninspired soliloquies are delivered by actors whose performances define "phoned it in." Nothing interesting or novel in the filming techniques or use of (stunning) locations. One point for costumes. (A couple of Colin Firth's outfits are noteworthy, as are Eileen Atkins' hats and coats -- especially the lace frock.) Another point for those great 1920s automobiles; the true stars as far as I'm concerned. A snooze-fest, watched it while answering emails.

And yes, much of the dialogue and plot reeks of the distinct odor of "self-explanation" -- the much older, sophisticated "man of the world" falls in love, inexplicably, magically, amorally, with a woman young enough to be his (grand)daughter.

This review may contain spoilers

I gave this a 6 because of the wonderful series of "greatest hits" of JC stunts during the ending credits. However, the film itself rates closer to a 4 or even a 3. I'm so sorry to have to write that, as a lifelong JC fan, it's disappointing and not the kind of Final Performance that would have done his career the justice it deserves.

As others have written, long-time JC fans will be left nonplussed. This film is more of an extended chase scene - with comedy that would be appropriate for an American sit-com (think: Married with Children) (yes, it is that lame, but in addition to sexism (one Chinese woman spends a lengthy amount of time moaning about her injured foot and the French woman is inept with weapons and generally silly), ethnic stereotypes/denigrations of French (men), and Americans.

The great stunts of yore are gone, but we can't fault a 58 year old for not being able/willing to slide from skyscraper roofs or jump from bridges (see also: ending credits scenes: it is clearly getting harder for JC to take the falls and injuries as he once did). This film confirms that there is no Heir Apparent to his astonishing legacy, which is a pity.

However, there is a nice extended scene at about the 2/3 point in which we see the JC we've loved for all these years, which includes several charming nods to previous films. The skydive (see below) and roll through the volcano seemed pointlessly dangerous and didn't really carry the plot forward in any way that I could see.

The combat between the two women (Qi Shu & Caitlin Dechelle) was impressive (although quite brief)- and there was a nice touch at the conclusion of their fight. It helped to redeem some of the earlier oh-I'm-a-helpless-girl moments.

The plot is as fragmented as this review. It is equal parts moral diatribe and prototype for a Disneyland ride, with small moments of humor. The dialogue is stilted and slides into alarmingly preachy soliloquies at odd times.

I'm not sure where Mr. Chan spent the film budget, but certainly not on dubbing for the US release. The soundtrack is occasionally muffled and the voices often fail to align with the movement of the actors' mouths (when they are speaking English). I'm not sure if the rather disappointing CGA during the "pirates" scene was meant to be as laughable as it appeared. I'd like to give JC the benefit of the doubt and hope so.

A couple of the characters dress like they wandered off from a children's theater performance of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. I'm not sure what that is all about.

As another reviewer remarked, the laws of gravity were apparently set aside (or the drop was made from 30,000+) as there was so much time for the characters to mess around before the parachutists reached the ground.

Die-hard Jackie Chan fans will watch this - we can't help ourselves, I suspect. And for those who don't know why we're such fans, either watch through to the conclusion or fast forward to the ending credits. This fellow has spent his adult life entertaining us - and literally risking life and limb to do so - and for that we are grateful.

Possible Spoilers?

Not sure what this movie was about, and neither were the writers. It could have been an absurdist romp, ala The Producers - and it almost was. It could have been a commentary on the desperation of those trying to make it in Hollywood, and the estrangements and grief - but it only skirted along the edges of that. It could have been a romantic comedy. But it wasn't.

Wm Macy is a truly excellent actor, to be sure - and Meg Ryan shows her acting chops here in a way that is surprising; the rest of the cast is good, too. No faults in that department.

It is just ... boring. Nothing unexpected or particularly amusing happens. There is no suspense - we're all pretty sure we know how it's all going to turn out. And we're right. The "complication" of the relationship between the two principals is minor and will clearly be resolved. The plot is predictable from beginning to end, including the conclusion.

Although the running time is reported to be 100 minutes it seemed MUCH longer.

Disappointing.

Reading some of the earlier comments, I began to wonder if I'd seen the same film. It is gaggingly-poorly edited/scripted. Watching it with friends, our comment at scene-changes was "and now, in an entirely different movie...." Motivation for the characters' actions? Why did Rachel leave Jeff in Mexico and go back to James? "Because you couldn't handle things" ... but he (oops SPOILER ALERT!) had just thrown the victim's body in a river (after hauling it several miles...). And then she says to James, "You have to let me go." But she just came back to HIM. Sigh.

James Woods' character changes about half way through, too; goes from being Mista Gangsta to the guy who looses the girl. Although Mr. Woods does a very courageous/convincing job of staying with the schizophrenic character. If there could be a reason to slog through this film, James Woods would be it. Aside from Rachel Ward/eye candy but, as another reviewer commented, she spends most of her time in baggy outfits that your (staunch Puritan) mother would approve of. One of the guys watching the film with us: "We wuz robbed! When does she take her clothes off?"

It was as if someone were trying to make An Art Film by chopping the scenes/changing the context every few minutes. Either that or everybody wanted to get some $$ for spending a lot of time hanging out on the beach. Hey, where do I sign up?