I am, frankly, puzzled by this film. On paper, it must have sounded fine, but if there is anything good about the film, it ended on paper. Even with several well-seasoned actors, and a rather nice location, the film fails in every possible way. The acting is wooden, the interior sets look as though they were borrowed from high school plays, the dialogue is somewhere between inane and pathetic. The film has no flow, no tempo, and barely a narrative. It also has no humor, no horror, no excitement, no suspense. I hope that's not a spoiler... The motivation of the main characters seems flimsy, at best, and though a film, it seems very much as though it were a play, because of the modest number of people who actually do anything or have any lines to say. All of the "bad guys" speak as though they had studied every gangster B-film ever made. I can't imagine that *anyone* ever gave this film anything but the lowest possible score but some people must have liked it. Hard to imagine.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Three Men in a Boat
(1975 TV Movie)
This IS Available on DVD!
15 August 2008
I just got this from coinfo@classicuktv.co.uk for 8.75 pounds (a bit under $18 incl shipping. Quality is okay, not amazing, but it's an old (1975) TV program. Stars Tim Curry. Screenplay by Tom Stoppard Based on Jerome K Jerome book Three Men In A Boat Shipping took about three weeks Well worth getting for Jerome fans Very funny. Decent production values. Is this ten lines yet? No. Okay: I just got this from coinfo@classicuktv.co.uk for 8.75 pounds (a bit under $18 incl shipping. Quality is okay, not amazing, but it's an old (1975) TV program. Stars Tim Curry. Screenplay by Tom Stoppard Based on Jerome K Jerome book Three Men In A Boat Shipping took about three weeks Well worth getting for Jerome fans Very funny. Decent production values.
The Man Who Came to Dinner
(1972 TV Movie)
An unexpected pleasure
18 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Welles did a fine job in this, his detractors notwithstanding. The material is as fresh and funny as it ever was-- it's a situational comedy, so it doesn't age badly. The production values of the televised version were great-- I think this was a PBS deal. And there is a special surprise that I think I shouldn't mention to stay on the right side of the spoiler issue. I don't know if it's possible to find this anywhere, but I would sure love to see it again if I could. You know, some people are great to watch even when they're not doing anything, and Welles was probably one of those. Even if he might not have been at the top of his game, he does a great job as Whiteside, and if this version isn't quite as good as the original, it's still well worth the time to watch it.
Lions for Lambs
(2007)
So Much Less Than We Deserve
9 November 2007
Awful is too harsh a word for this unappetizing mess, but it is certainly a train wreck of a movie. Other adjectives come to mind-- "didactic" will be used in about half of professional reviews. "Unfortunate" is another, which is a kind way of saying "bad". The film would have us believe that everything we're seeing, in three different locations, is taking place at the same time, and pretty much in real time. That would be clever if plausible, but in this cause the conceit seems simply contrived. The claustrophobic nature of the movie-- maybe half the film has two people on camera at once-- makes it seem as though it were a play, and a badly written one at that. There is a certain something to the fx, and it's not a good thing-- it seems as though several parts were shot in video and then spliced on to the rest. This wouldn't be a bad thing if it were intended, but I don't think it is, and it's jarring. There are some other implausible parts of the film which I can't mention here, but in a film that tries to be tight, having the audience go "Whoa, how did *that* happen!" is not a good thing. Redford is great on camera-- we like to look at him, he has a great voice, and his eyes still have that remarkable, defining quality that makes this guy The Robert Redford-- not just another actor. But Cruise is on autopilot, which seems to be all he has left anyway. For him, it's all smoke and mirrors and there is no there there any more, if there ever was. Streep is fine, though I don't think she wears this role very well. For those expecting another Devil Wears Prada sort of performance, you'll have to wait. This is not that. It's too bad. I don't think this movie will persuade anyone, and make no mistake, this movie was intended to Sway Public Opinion. But if that's the case, the people who imagined this film got it wrong from the outset, because the people who would be drawn to seeing this movie are much smarter than the authors think they are, and you can't talk down to people more clever than you.
Shortbus
(2006)
Not As Bad AsThe Ruling Class
15 April 2007
But other than that, yes, a rancid piece of awfulness. Entertaining? No. Enlightening? No. Fun? Funny? No, no. Here we have a movie that offers just about nothing. Sure, there's style, but style is easy these days. Do we care about any of these awful people? No-- So if there's a story with no people to care about, then who cares what happens to them? The yuckiness factor is only a distant second among major reasons to not watch this depressing bilge. I'm sure that some people will look at this and find Deep Meaning, but these are the same people who would find deep meaning in Bright Lights, Big City. (The book, not the film. Never seen the film-- the book was awful, so why see a film version?) The cheap in-feeling may attract some, but not anyone with an IQ of more than 75 and a modicum of self-worth. This film has nothing to offer any but the least self confident and the least happy.
Maybe Baby
(2000)
Maybe Not
14 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, this was not the Worst Movie Ever Made. But still, it is a too pathetic piece... It drags, it's lame-- even the concept is tired (the old "movie about making a movie thing"-- Been there, done that!)and even if true, it's not enough to make this worth watching. Hugh Laurie is nearly always worth watching-- hell, we'd probably enjoy watching him shave or change his motor oil, but the writing in this is ho-hum, the acting is uneven-- some very, very nice bits indeed, but cojoined with some truly looney characters (Emma Thompson, who I otherwise love, is simply whacked out here) and Mr Bean just doesn't belong in this movie. The film doesn't know if it's a drama or a comedy, or a comic drama or what. It lurches forth and back in tone, sort of keeping the viewer guessing. I think the movie may have been just an honest mistake. The director, after all, had a wife going through IVF at the time. Yes, there is humor in everything (well, most things), but this wasn't a comedy and it wasn't a drama-- It was like a steak and banana milk shake. Steak is fine, bananas are fine, but they don't go together mixed that closely. Is this film worth seeing? Sadly, no. It doesn't offer solace to the infertile, it doesn't offer enough laughs for those for whom infertility isn't a touchy subject, it's just there, and like a pile of dog doo in a meadow, it's best avoided.
Ghost Rider
(2007)
Better Than Critics Think
18 February 2007
Okay, this movie has taken a lot of heat (ohhhh) but in fact, it's good at what it is. You can't criticize a Snickers Bar for not being Creme Brulee. This is not High Art. It's a movie based on a comic book, and it does a great job of bringing that comic book to life, and of keeping the comic book nature of the story intact. This isn't a bad thing-- it is what it is. It's not a chick flick, it's not clever and witty, it's not deep and mysterious. It's a comic book brought to life on the big screen with nice fx and a decent score and appropriate acting. It's fun. It's a hoot. The bad guys are bad, the good guys are good-- and the end isn't a cop out which is nice. If you are not the audience for which this movie is intended, you will not like this film. If you are, you won't be disappointed. Is it as strong a movie as Spiderman? No. But the story isn't as strong either. It is, however, a good yarn, something my kids liked-- something I liked, and I'm not even a comic book guy.
Casino Royale
(2006)
Discontinuity, Mr Bond?
10 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
So Casino Royale is okay, but the little things that are wrong detract from the overall Bondness of the pic. The opening credits are wrong-- no women in silhouette dancing around, the Bond Himself coming in and out of view-- what is this stuff? The card game? Hello? This isn't the sort of card game Bond plays-- it's Americanized for no good reason. One of the appeals of Bond is that he's a Brit, and with the playing field everywhere *but* America (save for a short action sequence in Miami, which one could argue isn't really America at all...) the dumbing down is insulting. Plotwise, there's no clue what happens to the evil bimbette-- a lose end that will bother film goers once they are driving home and reflecting on the movie. I don't think Albert would be happy with this one.
A Fool and His Money
(1989)
Possibly one of the worst movies in the universe
1 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Sandra Bullock, bless her heart, is on screen for mere fleeting moments in this dunghill of bad writing, bad production values, bad concept, bad acting, this agglomeration of remorseless stupidity that should never have been made. Everything that Bullock has done from this movie forward is undoubtedly partly done to put this movie farther and farther behind her. In this film, a talentless loser is visited by God who tells him to start a corporation, but neglects to say what sort of company. Talentless loser decides that it would be a clever idea to start a new religion, with greed and self interest as the cornerstones. "The worst of capitalism and the best of Christianity" is the general idea. Wow! How imaginative! Big surprise, the idea works, the TL is raking in the dough, and then, surprise! he Sees The Light, declares himself and the religion a bad idea, a fraud, and gives it all up. In the end, for the final Huge Surprise, TL and Sandra Bullock are reunited on a tropical island paradise (well, we don't know that, we only see the inside of the plane terminal), he declares his love, she accepts him for some unfathomable reason, and they walk off down the hallway in blissful togetherness, probably grateful to have this wretched stinkball of a movie behind them. This film is actually worse than Governor Arnie's The Villain, which is really bad.
The Prince & Me II: The Royal Wedding
(2006 Video)
This Prince Of Denmark Already Dead
19 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Is this movie awful? Revolting? Noxious? No. But given how charming and well written the precursor was, there is no real excuse for this wretched venture into sequeldom. The only thing this film has going for it is a nice performance by Luke Mably, who doesn't seem to realize that he has wandered into a piece of utter rubbish. He stays the course he set in the original, and for that he deserves considerable credit. We have here virtually no one else on board from the original. Perhaps Mably was under contractual obligation for the sequel, maybe he just needed the money, who knows. But this is a movie to stay away from. My wife, who would ordinarily be such a movie's target audience, couldn't abide this steaming heap. A preposterous script that manages to instill boredom and distraction in viewers, caricature milquetoast villains, a predictable happy ending-- there is literally no there there in this movie. It's honestly not even worth renting on DVD, much less seeing in a theater. Better to chase down the first episode, or The Princess Diaries or even The Princess Bride if you're feeling the need for a dash of royalty in your life. Honestly, this movie is rotten on so many levels that there's not space enough to do justice to how bad it is. A Royal disappointment, indeed.
Must Love Dogs
(2005)
Charming and faithful
18 August 2005
It's always a challenge to satisfy both fans of a book and author as well as moviegoers. The book of the same name is probably the best work by this Massachusetts author, and certainly deserved to be turned into a movie. What to leave in, what to leave out, and how to move the narrative along were all fairly stiff challenges, and by contriving a few plot devices, an otherwise excessively complicated story (for the big screen) was successfully translated into a film story that captures the essence if not every detail of the original work. Lane and Cusack aren't really the people I would have chosen to play the leads-- not because I don't think they're great, but because they are not the original (book) protagonists. Having said that, they work very well, cast as the slightly different leads of the movie plot. Is this your basic chick flick? I suppose so, but I'd rather call it a Rachel movie. Trying to find a film I can take my wife to is a challenge-- she doesn't like sad, she doesn't like scary, she doesn't like violent, she doesn't like gross... She's a Sleepless In Seattle, You've Got Mail, Under The Tuscan Sun kind of girl. She liked this movie. Lane and Cusack are certainly reliable, and there are some lovely smaller performances from the supporting cast. Great art? Hardly. A fine date movie? Yassir, youbetcha.
Tell Your Friends