Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
one of the best comedies I've ever seen
5 March 2005
I can't believe some of the reviews I've read on this site about The Road to Wellville. Some people complain that it was crude and disgusting, others complain that it didn't have a coherent plot, and still others whine that it wasn't historically accurate (concerning Dr. Kellogg's methods). Those reviewers clearly missed the boat.

As for those who thought the movie was crude and disgusting, what did you expect from a comedy set in a turn-of-the-century health sanitorium run by a well meaning but eccentric doctor? Such a movie is bound to contain scenes of patients vomiting, getting enemas, and having a sexual tryst or two, just as undoubtedly occurred in many health sanitoriums at that time. Furthermore, none of those scenes were graphic, so I don't understand anybody being offended by them.

As for complaints that the movie didn't have a coherent plot, it didn't need one. It was a comedy, not a drama! The health sanitorium setting was a perfect vehicle for satirizing turn-of-the-century attitudes about health, and it was the dialogue and comedic situations that held the movie together and kept it moving, not its plot.

Finally, for those who complain that the movie wasn't historically accurate about Dr. Kellogg's actual methods (such as his character's use of electric-powered machines for health therapy), the movie was a comedy, not a biography! It was meant to elicit laughs, and in that respect it was a smashing success. I haven't laughed so much during a movie in a long time.

Some people should take Sargeant Hulka's ("Stripes") advice and "lighten up." Good comedy is not dependent on plot or historical accuracy to be entertaining; all that matters is that it's funny, and Wellville was one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen.
93 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Village (2004)
4/10
A great concept poorly executed
30 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Having read several reviews of the movie (none of which contained spoilers) before actually seeing it, my expectations were minimal. I decided to watch the movie without reference to the director's previous films so I could simply take it for what it was. Even then, however, I was not particularly impressed.

The concept was clever and interesting, but I don't think M. Night made the best of it. Most of the characters were not very well developed, so I didn't feel much connection with them, and the editing was uneven, as if scenes that would have created greater continuity had been cut out. This left me feeling somewhat annoyed and confused, not by the mystery contained in the story, because that was easy enough to figure out fairly early on, but by the manner in which it was executed.

The cast, of course, was very impressive. Most of the actors are top notch, but none of them -- with the exception of Bryce Dallas Howard, who played Ivy, the blind girl who was in love with Lucius (Jacquin Phoenix) -- was given enough room to make much of an impact. On top of that, Phoenix looked and felt out of place as Ivy's love interest. In my opinion, he just didn't do a very good job of acting.

Howard, on the other hand, did a fairly good job. The problem with her character was that she was given too much screen time. I understand that Ivy was the central character in the story, but the many scenes of her professing her undying love for Lucius were way too melodramatic and over the top for me. The biggest problem with her character, however, was that in way too many scenes she did not at all look or behave like a blind woman. In this respect, the most unbelievable scene was toward the end, when she was running through the woods to escape the "monster" that was pursuing her. I ask you, how can a blind person run through thick woods without once running into a tree or branch? It defies all logic and destroys the believability of the scene.

In sum, the idea behind the movie was compelling, but the director did a poor job of carrying it out. It seems to me that the concept would have been better executed within the confines of half-hour or an hour-long TV episode such as The Twilight Zone. Rod Serling would have skipped the corny dialogue and meandering plot and stuck to the essentials. Sometimes less is more.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Horse never should have returned
27 January 2005
I thoroughly enjoyed A Man Called Horse when it was released in 1970, but Return played like a typical sequel. Everything about it -- budget, script, plot, casting, and acting -- was inferior to the original. Gale Sondergaard as Elk Woman, an elder of the Yellow Hand tribe, looks nothing like an Indian, and neither do half of the other "Indians," who were played by Italians, Mexicans, and Latinos with cheap wigs. And the old guy who played the chief acted more like a fat old squaw than a fierce leader of warriors. He even used the bow like a woman! Finally, Richard Harris, who did such a superb job in the original, seems to be coasting this time around. I guess he couldn't resist the easy paycheck he got for reprising his role as Horse.

To be fair, there are some interesting moments in the movie, such as Horse's undergoing a painful purification ritual to "find his vision" and rally the Yellow Hands against their Indian enemies and white oppressors, but on the whole, Return is uneven, boring, corny, and predictable -- just like most sequels.
7 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
White Zombie (1932)
The zombie actors
18 November 2004
The movie was good for its time, but it comes across as incredibly corny today. Many reviewers appreciate some of the technicial aspects of the movie (mood, lighting, sets, etc.), which were laudable for the time, but the acting, particularly that of Lugosi, is way over the top! I find one amateur reviewer's comments equally laughable:

"I think the acting by the zombies is very good and so is their make-up (i.e. they have very frightening faces.)"

Just how much acting does it require to play a zombie? Staring ahead with a "deer-in-the-headlights" look on your face hardly requires any acting ability!
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed