Reviews

Until almost the end, this film does an exceptional job of accurately concentrating the plot and characterization of Conrad's great novel into a fairly short running time. The performances are all good to excellent, with Cedric Hardwicke particularly well cast as the languidly menacing Mr. Jones. And the direction and photography are occasionally inventive - especially memorable is the arrival of the three main antagonists, first seen as fast moving shadows that seem to emerge from the neck of the dark carriage horse that has brought them into town.

Unfortunately, the novel's incredibly moving and complex ending is replaced by a totally different, Hollywood, conclusion, which isn't awful but also isn't particularly good.

I've watched a lot of zombie movies and TV over the years, and I thought All of Us Are Dead was among the best. The action was often incredibly exciting and tense, and the high school students' developing relationships seemed emotionally believable to me. (I mostly watched in Korean with English subs - the English dubbing struck me as weak, causing many dialogue exchanges to sound stilted and overacted.)

Also, even when I like an action show where a group of characters is in constant danger, I usually think repeatedly, "You're such an idiot, you deserve to be killed." But I can't remember thinking that here. Sometimes the characters make mistakes, but, to me at least, they're realistic mistakes that might actually happen in stressful moments.

Anyway, it's the rare new series like this one that keeps me from cancelling Netflix.

While watching this well-paced film in Italian with subtitles (1 hour 33 minutes), I thought more than once, "It's keeping my attention, but unless it's got a strong ending, the whole thing's going to seem pretty pointless." Fortunately, the last five minutes or so are excellent, with at least three twists, two of which I didn't see coming. (I did, very late, guess the third twist, because I'd seen the ending of a certain mid-'70s Peter Fonda movie.)

I also watched part of the American version, which, although 2 minutes shorter, seemed to have significantly more nudity (and actually began with a "This picture has been rated X" card). Of course, today, it would be, at most, a very mild R.

Except for the brief added subplot involving Montalbano's father, and the elimination of a female coworker role, this episode follows the book very closely. But the direction is a bit bland, with some of the spikiness in the book's relationships becoming a bit too cute and friendly at times, even when the dialogue is nearly identical. Decent, and worth seeing for the location work, but slightly disappointing.

I found Last Will interesting and informative, but it didn't convince me that Shakespeare was a false front for any of the candidates discussed, such as the Earl of Oxford. While this documentary does lean heavily toward the Oxford view, it also presents counter-arguments -- e.g., the Oxfordians go out of their way to create Oxfordian interpretations of the works, then use those interpretations as "proof" that Oxford must be the author.

The manner in which "evidence" can be made to mean whatever you're predisposed to have it mean is summed up in an entertaining minute or two excerpted from a mock trial presided over by three US Supreme Court justices in the 1980s. To make the point that Oxford wasn't trying to maintain a respectable image and thus didn't need to invent, or use, "Shakespeare" as his shield, the anti-Oxford attorney lists all the debauchery openly engaged in by Oxford. Then, one of the Justices smilingly retorts, "He sounds like a playwright!"

I agree with many of the criticisms here, but I found the problems less bothersome than did some people.

Having read the book three times, I thought this version was pretty faithful, and the changes didn't annoy me too much.

Saarsgard was excellent, as were Kinnear, Wolff, and Hamish Linklater in a too-small role. Everybody else had plenty of nice moments, with the possible exception of the surprisingly bland and uncharismatic Amber Heard.

I also thought the second-to-last episode (Vegas) was much better than the same part of the story in the 1990s miniseries (at least as I recall it years later).

Anyway, I liked this current version enough that I watched the whole thing over three consecutive days, and I certainly don't regret it.

Very solid, and mostly well cast, with Franco doing good work as both actor and director. I was just surprised that, after staying so faithful to the book in so many ways, the last scene departs from the novel significantly, and not for the better. Basically, it truncates the book's ending and has Jason do something very different and less interesting. Plus, the change didn't even appear needed for budgetary or time purposes, or because it would be difficult to depict on film -- both endings involve the same characters and a wagon.

I also think the Quentin section would have been improved by including a couple more minutes of his interactions with the little Italian girl and others as he tries to bring her home to her family.

Still, definitely worth seeing if you like the novel (I'm not sure what I would have thought if I hadn't read the book).

The Bravos was a failed TV pilot that became an ABC Sunday night movie in early 1972. Despite a first-rate cast and surprisingly high production values, it isn't very interesting. I stuck with it to the end, mostly because I was glad to see LQ Jones in a fairly large role.

As others have noted, Jason Robards' performance as Brutus has real problems, particularly at the start. While playing the character as vague and distracted is certainly justified by the text, Robards often appears just this side of comatose. James Mason was far better in the older film version.

The biggest and best surprise is Heston's strength as Antony. He believably conveys an interesting mixture of loyalty, craftiness, and ambition. And his work in the funeral oration is well-paced and well-directed. Overall, this version has a lot going for it -- it's among the better Shakespeare adaptations that I know of.

This exceptionally well-done miniseries easily surpasses both the Vidor and Bondarchuk versions. It makes the most of its nearly 13 hours, featuring many excellent performances, strong cinematography, and a good script. In addition, the director's use of long takes really allows the actors to *interact,* adding to the overall feel of realism.

Hopkins is likeable and believable as the twitchy, self-conscious Pierre. Dobie is excellent as the somewhat distant Andrei -- he succeeds in being handsomely iconic without seeming stupid or wooden. In fact, it's hard to imagine a more effective performance of this role. And Morag Hood is very good as Natasha, once the character ages a bit (it's hard to accept a woman in her late 20s as a 14-year-old).

The writers and actors also avoid the cardboard characterizations of historical figures that so often plague historical fiction; the main adversaries in the "War" -- a self-important Napoleon and the disfigured, forthright General Kutuzov -- are both vividly portrayed.

There are occasional weaknesses, but for the most part, this is a wonderful production.

Overall, this is a first-rate version of the play. Kevin Kline is excellent for the most part, especially when he's being quietly contemptuous and bitterly ironic. He only falters somewhat when trying to express loud rage. At these points (thankfully rare) he bellows in a melodramatic, actorish manner and occasionally rolls around on the floor ala Curly in The Three Stooges.

Special note should be made of Peter Francis James, who plays Horatio. He's excellent as Hamlet's one real friend. His attempt to act like a true "Roman" actually brought a tear to my eye -- the only time I've ever gotten weepy during this particular play.

I liked it and find the extremely low rating puzzling, although the problems are clear -- some bad editing, particularly of reaction shots; a horrible theme song; and one of the most oddly presented sex scenes ever.

But there are also some intentionally funny moments, decent dialogue, good location work throughout Southern California, and a lot of exciting, and even inventive, violent action. Plus (I at least view it as a plus), Mitchell is a jerk! And he's obviously supposed to be! It's not as though they failed at presenting a fun, quirky guy; they succeeded in presenting a hard-to-get-along-with slob, which I thought was a great change of pace.

I saw this recently on the Warner Archive channel and was very pleasantly surprised -- the mediocre 6.9 rating on IMDb (at the moment) is much too low, in my view. Still, that rating is in line with the lukewarm critical reception that Dream West got when originally shown.

For instance, the New York Times thought that the miniseries overemphasized the love story and took too many liberties with the facts. Also, in that paper's view, Mr. Chamberlain was not quite as convincing as usual - - "even out in the wilds, he seems to have stepped out of an Abercrombie & Fitch ad." Still, the Times found the series as a whole a breath of fresh-air in comparison to the Sidney Sheldon/Judith Krantz-style shows that were so popular at the time, and also thought that two of the most significant roles were very well-played (Alice Krige is "especially appealing" as Mrs. Fremont, and Rip Torn is "terrific" as Kit Carson).

Although I can understand the basis for the negative comments made about Dream West on its original airing, I mostly don't agree with them. I think the main problem is that the first half-hour or so is, indeed, a bit too soapy. But in retrospect, the opening "star-crossed lovers" approach grounds the relationship between Fremont and his wife in a way that pays off as they face various obstacles over a long life together.

Also, Dream West is filled with vivid, well-produced outdoor scenes that convincingly suggest the grueling conditions faced by explorers of the American continent in the early to mid 19th century.

And last -- I thought Chamberlain was excellent and that he and Krige played well off each other. If the subject matter sounds like it might appeal to you, I'd strongly recommend this miniseries.

Parts of this video made me laugh as hard as I ever have. It's an extremely funny but also very harsh, dark parody of Woodstock, hippies, drug use, protests, and the pop culture of the time (late 60s-early 70s).

There are wonderful impersonations of a cynical Dylan, a bitter yet boring Joni Mitchell, the sanctimonious "bummer" Joan Baez, and many others. And virtually every member of the cast has some great moments, with John Belushi particularly excellent as the MC. Not everything works, but the things that do are incredible.

Plus, it is currently available for viewing on a major, legal streaming video site.

This is pretty good, but it's more a musical than an opera. Characters speak in dubbed English and only occasionally break into song, in dubbed Italian.

It's got colorful costumes and sets and some attractive location photography of old buildings and the countryside. There are moments when you really feel as though you've stepped into the past.

I liked it. You may, too, as long as you're not expecting an opera.

Current minimum line requirements promote verbosity and devalue concision.

DVD Bonus: Three enjoyable, well-restored audio performances from Caruso.

Murderer flees the big city and becomes an arms dealer in the borderlands of Argentina. He grows increasingly cocky, taking more and more risks.

Nothing incredible, but solidly enjoyable, with a good guitar-based score and some dialogue that's both colorful and symbolic. The location shooting is also evocative.

In all, this is sort of a Latin American spaghetti western. At times it evokes Leone -- especially at the end, with its grandiose close-ups and swirling, operatic qualities. At other times it's fairly low-key and subtle.

Walken gives a funny, sweet performance as a community theater acting dynamo and heart-throb -- who's so shy he can't hold a conversation unless it's scripted.

Sarandon is also very good as the woman who falls in love with him and attempts to bring him out of his off-stage shell.

To be honest, though, this TV movie suffers a bit from very cheap production values, occasionally weak direction, and mediocre performances by much of the rest of the cast -- even apart from their purposely amateurish play-within-a-play acting.

In addition, it's one of the few movies I've seen that's actually too short. It would have benefited from at least one more off-stage scene further developing Walken's and Sarandon's characters.

Still, I like it a lot and highly recommend it.

The VHS release that I saw of this included an introduction by Richard Thomas, who played a bit part as one of Nora's kids.

There were also interviews with Robards, Plummer, Harris, and director Schaefer that are a bit more candid than one usually expects. For instance, Plummer and Robards got so hammered the night before the broadcast that they both showed up late for the dress rehearsal. Plummer even adds that he vaguely remembers being with a girl he'd picked up, but had probably been unable to "perform" with her.

Meanwhile, Robards and Harris can't help smirking a bit about Schaefer, who would regularly fall asleep in a wheelchair midway through rehearsals. He didn't *need* the wheelchair -- he simply didn't like walking!

In any case, the whole group came up with a first rate, streamlined version of the play. Harris is believably superficial and dishonest early on, and doesn't overplay her final act epiphany. Robards, who may well still have been drunk, has no trouble appearing "under the weather" but is also believably low-key in his hushed admissions of love.

Plummer is a bit too smooth, perhaps, as Torvald, the sometimes smug, sometimes insecure husband. Honestly, I kept thinking, "He's far too charismatic and attractive to play a moralizing, stick-in-the-mud banker."

Best of all is Hume Cronyn. As with everyone in this production, he's obviously (and wisely) been directed to steer clear of melodramatics. And even though, on paper, he's the least sympathetic character (a blackmailer), in performance he's the most understandable and convincing.

In all, this is better than the more familiar versions from the '70s (with Claire Bloom and Jane Fonda). Worth seeing if you can find it.

This hour-long docudrama presents Wordsworth's sister Dorothy as his muse and true love, as well as a talented poet in her own right. As Dorothy lies on her deathbed, William remembers their lives together, including his arguable betrayal of his sister through marriage to another woman.

The deep, almost incestuous feeling between the two is believable and moving, but every now and then something goes terribly wrong in the production -- a particularly goofy close-up or montage, some very badly delivered dialogue, etc.

Still, I liked it and will probably watch it again. It's especially good at showing the passion that exists in Wordsworth's verse, presenting it as more than just "nature poetry" (although there are many lovely shots of the landscape that inspired him).

Incredibly informative and interesting. I especially liked the dueling Shylocks episode, in which Suchet and Stewart play the same scenes back to back and explain why they made their different choices.

Also very interesting is the episode in which each actor does a brief speech from Troilus and Cressida, then gets direction from Barton and redoes it, usually for the better.

You also learn a little about the actors as people. For instance, Patrick Stewart is a bit of a ham. Ben Kingsley is soft-spoken and quick to admit what he sees as faults in his acting style. Ian McKellen is rather teacherly, expounding at length whenever he's given the chance.

Highly recommended!

The title "Stanley and the Women" really is accurate for Amis's book, which I liked a lot. But this miniseries ought to be called "Stanley and His Schizophrenic Son." Even at four hours, Stanley's relationships with his wife, ex-wife, female coworker, and the female psychiatrist are given short-shrift. With the exception of the coworker, all these characters are drawn with broad strokes, especially the psychiatrist, who seems like a bizarre Dr. Frankenstein from the first -- someone to whom the reasonable, well-off Stanley would never entrust his son.

Still, Thaw's performance is so good that I watched all four hours straight through.

Michael Elphick, who plays the current husband of Stanley's ex-wife, is also good. The low-key scenes between him and Stanley are the most believable in the production.

One of my favorite films. I don't have much to add to the positive reviews here except to say that Cutter's Way repeatedly alludes to Herman Melville, especially Moby Dick --

A character explicitly refers to Moby Dick early in the film; Cutter has a false limb, like Captain Ahab; his wife's name is "Mo"; he says, "Thar she blows" when he sees the villain's huge office building; after that part of the pursuit, he angrily shoots at an animal in the water; the whole story takes place in and around boats, and it begins at the "El Encantado" (Melville wrote "The Encantadas, or the Enchanted Isles").

What does all this add up to? I don't know exactly, but this film is an excellent mix of character studies, love stories, and suspense -- with great dialog and performances.

I watch it every few years and am never disappointed, except by the fact that one of the main characters (the sister) suddenly and permanently disappears, as if she'd never been in the movie at all. It's not a great loss, but it's certainly one of the worst continuity errors I know of.