Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
This is a test, only a test.
6 July 2007
This is a test, only a test.

This film is a short sequence used to show off a brand new machine called a Kinetoscope.

There is no plot, no clichés, no hamming it up, no stereotypes, no awards, no acting, no directing, no writing, no producing, no nothing.

Commenting on this film like it was a feature with a script, actor, and director, or commenting on Dicksons acting is ridiculous.

He was an inventor not an actor.

Commenting on the movie industry, which didn't yet exist, is even more ridiculous.

They just wanted to welcome the people who viewed the film on the Kinetoscope. So they told Dickson, who helped invent the thing, to stand in front of the camera and bow and take off his hat. You know, like a greeting.

The reason that it was repeated 6 times is because it was only 3 seconds long.

None of this matters as it was only used to show off the machine, not the film.

I repeat, this is a test, only a test.

Cnevel
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stage Fright (1950)
9/10
This one surprised me.
21 March 2007
I have to admit that the ending of this Hitchcock film surprised me.

I am usually pretty good at picking up clues but I missed 2 large ones in this film.

The first is the story told by the murderer, I believed it. The story was told in flashback, it may be a lie. I have seen most of the Hitchcock films and the innocent are virtually always just that, innocent. It just didn't occur to me that the story might be a lie.

The second clue is the fact that the heroine fell out of love with the murderer and into love with the detective. This should have clinched it for me but I missed the meaning completely. Heroines do not fall out of love with heroes, unless there is a very good reason.

This film is a bit subdued due to the fact that the murderer could not give himself away until the end.

I thought that it could have had a more intense climax when his guilt was revealed.

I give it 9 out of 10 due to fact that it surprised me.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Impact (1949)
4/10
Imitation Film Noir
24 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film tries to be "Film Noir" but just doesn't make it.

When I started watching it I could have sworn it was from the late 30's or early 40's, partly due to the poor quality print. When I realized that it was from the late 40's I was shocked.

The plot is actually quite good until the end, which was a dreadful anticlimax.

There are two main problems with this film, one is the obviously very poor direction, the other is that Brian Donlevy's character is far to mild mannered.

Brian Donlevy was a great actor, strong willed and forceful. Check out "Beau Geste". In this film, even though he starts out to be a businessman who doesn't take no for an answer, he turns out to be a wimp. Poor writing.

A wimp is not what is needed in the second half of this film and wimps do not belong in film noir.

Charles Coburn was a fine actor and could be gruff when he needed to be. This role called for a hardened detective, instead he acts like Shirley Temple's kindly grandfather. Poor direction.

Ella Raines and Helen Walker did a good job, though I think Ella's character should have gotten stronger and nastier after she found out that her husband was alive and her lover was dead. Again, poor direction.

Anna May Wong should have quit when sound came in.

I believe Mae Marsh to have been a good "sound" actress but she never got a chance to prove it. She had all but retired from acting until the stock market crash wiped her out. She doesn't seem to have wanted to be an actress and was relegated to uncredited mother roles when she had to return to make money. Mae did a good job in this role as in the other small parts that I have seen her in.

Now back to the biggest problem with this film, the ending.

Brian Donlevy's lawyer tells his wife that he can prove that she is guilty. Charges are dropped against him, brought against her, The End.

The writer seems to have been late for an engagement and just hammered out a quick end.

This could have been a great film with some touching up of the script and a better director.
11 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Boring.
21 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This film gets its high rating just because W.C. Fields is in it.

The problem is that he isn't in much of it.

He only had a couple of funny bits, and they weren't all that funny.

Poor writing and direction is the problem.

W.C. could be great, this film didn't give him a chance.

Another problem is that the pace of the film is very slow and comic timing doesn't seem to have been invented yet.

Ben Turpin never served a purpose except for the fact that he was cross eyed, Ha Ha Ha very funny, NOT.

Jack Oakie and Hugh Herbert also turn in uncharacteristically dull performances.

When all of these people are deadly dull the problem must be the writing and direction.
10 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not too bad. A good beginning and then downhill.
19 October 2005
The Black Bird is not really a parody, as it does not poke fun at "The Maltese Falcon".

It is just a very subtle comedy with very little plot, about another group of people searching for the bird.

It is not a great film, or a hilarious film, but worth watching mainly to see the performances of Lee Patrick and Lionel Stander.

The "8" that I gave it is for them, otherwise I would have given it a "5" or "6".

If they had given Elisha Cook Jr. a larger part it would have helped.

The running gag with the car was cute but nothing to write home about.

The addition of a little person playing a Nazi with Hawaiian thugs was just dumb.

The ending was about the same as the ending of most of this type of movie, a letdown to the tune of "Bye Bye Blackbird".
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A cute film worth watching.
10 September 2005
This film is cute and humorous.

There are two reasons that this film is derided by the comments and the ratings.

The first is that people believe that Bogart should not have been in it.

The second is that it is a hillbilly film.

If Bogart had not been in this film the rating would be 3 or 4 points higher.

In most cases, an actor who looks out of place when out of his genre is considered to be a bad actor.

In this case, since it is Bogart, the film is blamed instead.

It is suggested that the acting is poor. It is not.

Most of these actors are experienced and their acting is just as good as always.

The same actors in other Bogart films are always considered to have give good performances, as they did in this film.

The Weavers were not actors but did their hillbilly act for many years.

They were in quite a few films and were very popular.

My mother saw them in 1951 in Washington D.C. on a class trip.

Most people today just believe that they are above hillbilly humor.

It is called political correctness.

Give this film a shot.

Ignore the fact that Bogart is in it and enjoy.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Big Sleep (1946)
10/10
Attention span
12 June 2005
Virtually everything has been said about this film but I will add a few points.

This film only seems complicated because we are so used to watching films with simple plots that we just don't pay attention. If you miss even a minute of this film, you are lost.

A question that is asked several times in the comments is "Who Killed Sean Regan".

If you don't know, it is because you were not listening.

At the end of the film we are told that Eddie Mars killed Sean Regan and blamed it on Carmen so that he could blackmail Vivian into helping with the cover-up, thus keeping her father from investigating.

General Sternwood hired Marlowe to stop the blackmail by Geiger, not to find Sean Regan.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Doctor Who (2005–2022)
Toilet Humor? Pitiful!
3 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I have been watching Doctor Who for 25 years. I have seen every episode including the recons and I must say that the new doctor who series stinks!

The old doctors acted out of a sense of duty to the universe. The new doctor acts out of a need for jollies.

The doctor didn't regenerate, he degenerated into toilet humor, which is a sign of desperation.

If your show is so bad that you must resort to jokes about farting to get a juvenile to chuckle, then you need to scrap the entire project.

Why is he always grinning like an idiot?

The time lapse photography is completely out of place .

The music is all wrong.

I don't blame the actors as they don't have much control over anything.

It's too bad that Billie Piper was chosen for this role due to the fact that she can be portrayed in the publicity shots as a porn star, another sign of desperation.

I am sure every 3 legged boy out there is happy about that.

It is to her credit that she doesn't act like one.

Christopher ecclestons doctor simply has no class.

The biggest problem is the fact that the stories are so shallow. The doctor has yet to do much of anything.

So far I have seen the first 3 episodes and the solutions are; 1. Let someone else throw the antiplastic. 2. Stand there while cassandra dries up and explodes. 3. Let someone else turn up the gas. 4. Simplistic and boring.

No investigation, no theory, no plan, no sparring with the enemy, no nothing.

A decent Doctor Who story cannot be told in 45 minutes, they need to make them all 2 part stories.

The new Doctor Who better get better fast!

P.S. I just started watching episode 4, 13 minutes into it the farting starts. I turned it off. I'll try again when I am less disgusted. What's next, is the doctor going to ask rose to pull his finger?

P.S.S. I just read that eccleston quit. What a LOSER!
8 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Definitely a children's movie!
8 January 2005
I had never before seen any version of this film, nor have I read the book.

My mother tells me that she first saw this film when she was 10 (1946) and simply loved it. She hadn't seen it since.

In the 70's she wondered what had become of this film and wrote to Frazier Thomas, host of "Family Classics", in Chicago.

His response stated that Walt Disney purchased this film when his 1960 version came out and locked it away never to be seen again.

She recently mentioned it again so I looked it up, and to my surprise, found it.

Swiss family Robinson is a good 1940 children's film. But that is all!

Thomas Mitchells acting is as good as always, and the boys did a good job acting like wealthy brats reformed by their ordeal.

Did anybody notice that the youngest boy, Francis Robinson, played by Baby Bobbie Quillan, was a girl? I didn't.

I think Edna Best could have done better as Elizabeth Robinson. Her acting was stiff and boring, though it may not have been entirely her fault, this is a 1940 film set in 1820.

The story is ridiculous, most children's stories are, and there's too much religion for me, but I can look past these points.

The special effects are dated but are reasonable for their day.

This film is obviously a low budget production. It needs a good disaster scene when the captain and crew are washed overboard and more adventure on the island.

If you are into nostalgia take a look.
14 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed