Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
A Painful Experience
4 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This "documentary" describes a conspiracy so preposterous that only the most rabid Glenn Beck fan could lend it any credence. A monumental insult to intelligence.

The film's obviously fake George Harrison narration details a massive government run conspiracy to cover up the death of Paul and his replacement with a double named William Campbell. We are asked to believe British intelligence intervenes when Paul suffers a ghastly death in a fiery auto crash while his witness/passenger walks away unhurt. The three remaining Beatles are sworn to secrecy (presumably along with dozens of others who would have to be part of the cover-up) and agree to continue the group. But, worried that fans would be angry if they were found out, they plant "clues" in their subsequent albums and lyrics.

This might be a fanciful, albeit incredibly simple-minded, diversion were it not for the disrespect it shows to the dead. And the necessary implication that John was solely responsible for so many of the Beatles greatest songs, is demeaning to Paul McCartney as well.

If you find the story presented here to be the least bit plausible, you need to be tested.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Great "Bad" Movie
17 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Mandatory spoiler alert!!! This is a great example of one of those low-budget SciFi flicks that is so bad it's fun to watch. How did the MSTies miss it? It's an object lesson in low budget film-making. Only 70 minutes - about half of that walking, walking, walking and smoking, driving, more walking, etc. Borrow a big estate for a day and shoot people walking all over it. Write a script that needs only 5 actors (not counting the cab driver and the cop). Say the characters are staying in the guest house so you don't have to build elaborate interior sets. Borrow music from other films. Make the Martians invisible. Hire a pair of twins to play the teenage daughter, and cheat the other doppelganger scenes. I think there were just a couple actual FX shots, and not very expensive ones at that. Most expensive prop was the clapped out MG they had to turn on its side.

All in all, I found it vastly entertaining from the POV of the film-making process. And when all is said and done, the story itself is not awful.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Tedious biopic - unsympathetic subject
29 March 2005
20 people rated this a 10! That ballot box was stuffed better than a Christmas turkey! Speaking of turkey's, here's a traditional story hoping to piggy-back on the current poker craze - without success. Told entirely in linear flashback, and when I say "told" I mean TALKED TO DEATH, this film never let's a picture suffice when words can be used to exposit.

Stu Unger's childhood fascination with cards and his associations with hoodlums might sound like interesting movie material, but the director manages to suck the life out of them. At no point did I feel the least bit of sympathy for Unger, a genius at cards who threw it all away on other forms of gambling at which he was not so proficient. Of course, this leads, as we wade through THREE musical montages, to the inevitable downward spiral of drugs, loss of family, and finally his redemption (sort of). Big yawn!
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Noises Off... (1992)
Some things are better left alone.
3 August 2004
I imagine a playwright trying to create a farce and getting stuck for ideas. Then he has a masterstroke! Forget the farce and make the play about the difficulties of putting on the play! Brilliant. It works. Unfortunately, turning it into a film doesn't work quite as well. The expanded elements and the editing are a jarring reminder that you are watching a film adaptation while perhaps wishing you were in a theater watching the play (or at least a simple film of a live performance).

To say Bogdanovich ruined a perfectly good play, would be an overstatement. The movie is reasonably good, just not as funny as I'm sure the play is. I kept asking myself what purpose is served by making this into a film. At least it was an introduction to an ingenious play that I will someday try to attend. For that, it was worthwhile.

PS: Did I see a cameo by Truffaut near the end?
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed