Reviews

Lovely in cinematography and the acting of the two girls. But there is so little that is explained that could have made it deeper. So much time was spent on watching/listening to people eat, brush their teeth, etc., etc., and just a little of that time could have been spent in creating scenes that explained just a little of the background story. The end result for me and my companion was boredom, which is a shame.

I'm fascinated by the wonderful character actors in so many of the '30s and '40s B movies, and they had me laughing all through this. I especially loved Carle -- he totally inhabits the part and his character in consistent in every scene he's in. Bigger stars and a bigger budget might have made a movie that was a big hit instead of simply charming, but that would have been a very different movie. For me, I was again impressed with what creativity and very good character actors having fun with their parts could create on a small budget. Like so many of the B's, it has lots of small delights. I started watching it with a smile and by the end, was chuckling at every scene.

I fell in love with black and white films of the '30s and '40s when I was a young teenager, and I always remembered Fly by Night as one of my favorites. For years I couldn't find it, and I was so happy to discover it this weekend again. I'm a bit more discerning than I was at 10 or 11 (at least of old movies), so I recognize now that it's not Hitchcock-caliber. But I still found it delightful. Richard Carlson and Nancy Kelly are wonderfully matched. There is just the right amount of light tension, lots of action, and throughout, after the first scene, humor and sophistication and unexpected fun. I must say, this is in no way a film noir! It has none of the elements of noir --- no antihero with moral qualms, no "bad girl," and especially because it's much too lighthearted (the music with the ending credits makes that clear, if you aren't sure!). I've seen it referred to as a screwball comedy-mystery, but I wouldn't call it that, either. It's not screwball, just fun with mystery and actors who can pull it off. It's a frothy concoction, a cocktail with a scoop of ice cream and unexpected lingering flavors. (I couldn't otherwise have remembered it for decades!) It's an original.

I was so glad I came across this movie for my Christmas treat. I'd never heard of it but was delighted to see it was based on an Agatha Christie story. Ann Harding grabbed my attention immediately, with her lovely eyes and strong, composed features. As the story developed I quickly saw parallels to themes developed in other films by Hitchcock in particular, and wondered if Hitch borrowed some of the ideas from this story. At any rate, while the suspense was slow to build, there were foreshadowings. Once the suspense hit, it built to a mesmerizing climax with breathtaking acting in particular by Basil Rathbone. I was very impressed with Harding's acting, too, conveyed largely by subtle changes of expression. Loved the film and will watch it again.

I've watched nearly every episode of the Poirot series as well as some of the film versions and have loved most of them, but this episode stunned me with its rich, authentic period settings, Suchet's ability to portray the young and the mature Poirot equally convincingly, the graceful, unobtrusive background music -- all in all, I kept thinking I was watching a full-budget movie. I simply loved it and will watch it again to enjoy again the exquisite care for detail that make this such a fine series and this a particularly fine episode. I had just one quibble, that bothered me only because the episode is otherwise so perfect. A jeweled lapel pin worn by Poirot that features in the background story appears to have violet flowers in most scenes, but in a flashback when he first receives it, the flowers look decidedly pink or coral. If anyone can explain this discrepancy, I'd appreciate it, just so I can say, "Utterly perfect"!

This is one of my favorite Midsomer Murders so far (I haven't seen them all). I love the series, but some of the episodes have so many gruesome murders that it is almost comical and for me detracts from enjoyment. This episode got much more into character development. I particularly appreciated the performance of Phyllis Calvert (Aunt Alice). She's an actress from the golden era of 30's and 40's movies, and still in this episode has marvelous eyes and glowing skin. It's wonderful to see some of those actors and actresses still performing and obviously still enjoying it. I felt that all of the various strands of plot came together nicely and that the story made sense on so many levels, reflecting the reality of emotions older people experience in nursing homes. It was a good change of pace from the more violent episodes.

This was a marvelous episode. I'm surprised Donald Pleasence wasn't nominated for an Emmy for his performance as the chief suspect. He made the motivations of his unlikable character understandable and even sympathetic. What's more, that character was physically very restrained, for the most part, so Pleasence had to make him known through minuscule changes in facial expression, small movements, nearly imperceptible hesitations. The moment when Columbo becomes suspicious of him is due to to the tiniest inconsistency in behavior, and the close-up of Columbo's face, the combination of light and shrewdness in his eyes, is a joy to behold. The story itself is intriguingly different, too: a murder motivated not by the usual jealousy, greed, or lover's quarrel, but by a very different type of passion.

Really a delight all the way through to watch these masters of the craft at work in a very well-told tale, and with the masters, a mistress of the acting craft, Julie Harris, in a smaller role, equally impeccably played. I rank the episode at the top of my list now, together with one featuring Leonard Nimoy as an ego maniacal surgeon.

I absolutely adored this film until about the last 15 minutes, and was surprised, considering how good it was up to that point, that those last minutes had so many flaws. But in my opinion, that hardly matters. I'm looking forward to re-watching the first part, and relishing Coburn's impeccable comedic timing and deadpan expression -- his attempts to navigate his first 7:00-7:30 a.m. breakfast/bathroom drill in the apartment left me with a fit of the giggles that I badly needed. Jean Arthur was always wonderful, and she was especially beautiful in this. And I'm glad to see by other comments here that, despite all the efforts of modern filmmakers, genuine romantic chemistry can still be recognized -- hooray! The growing romantic tension between Arthur and McCrea simply sizzles. When the pair are walking back to the apartment and Ms. Arthur keeps managing to shrug her wrap back off her shoulders as McCrea keeps putting it back on, just so he'll touch her shoulders again, you can feel the way her body is winning the battle over her mind, and it's the very essence of sexiness. Ah, if only all those filmmakers who think a pair of naked bodies, some fake sweat, and panting automatically create a sexy scene would watch this a few dozen times and get a clue!! Delicious film in so many ways, and now I'll go seek out "The Devil and Ms. Jones" and other of the Arthur films I haven't yet seen.

I finally saw this movie on the TV for the first time yesterday (1/4/08). I'd always avoided it for some reason - probably because it was so popular, I thought it had to be a big Hollywood feel-good movie without any depth or texture. Boy, was I wrong! I loved everything about it, especially, as some here have noted, the overall sense of "real magic" created by a combination of great directing, stunning cinematography, perfect acting, genius editing, and of course, a story that resembles timeless fairy tales in its themes of love, loss and redemption. What affected me most, though, was the cinematography. I've never before been so mesmerized by the lighting in a film that I felt compelled to research the cinematographer. It wasn't just the light hitting Glenn Close in her white dress in the stands in that pivotal scene, though I found myself gasping "how did they DO that?" It was the light throughout the entire film, soft, radiant yet somehow evocative of the past and lost beauties (until the last scene). The use of light weaves into the themes, with the "darker" characters often wearing black, or choosing always to sit in the dark. I see that cinematographer Caleb Deschanel has a self-made film titled "Visions of Light" that I'd love to see. Anyway, I'm so glad I finally saw it, and I'm looking forward to seeing it again often.

Reading the commercial reviews for this film only confirms my belief that no reviewers can be trusted and that most of the reviews are probably bought and paid for by the production companies.

This is a film about a woman supposedly entirely changed by her rage when she is left by her husband. But through the entire film, the change is reflected in two ways only: by Joan Allen's cold, robotic expression for 90% of the film, and by her rude treatment of the daughters she supposedly loves. It was to me entirely unbelievable that Kevin Costner's character, who is typically Costner-warm and accessible, would be attracted to such a creature. It certainly wouldn't be because of her personality, and it's hard to imagine it could be because of her emaciated body. The film's billing as a "dark comedy" is just as strange. I found not a single scene worthy of a smile, much less laughter - unless Allen's reflexive cruelty to (1) her daughters; (2) Costner; (3) her daughter's doctor; (4) one daughter's love interest, or bedding interest, etc., etc., is what passes for humor in American film these days.

That's what annoyed me the most. Film has such enormous potential: to enlighten, inspire, bring a little joy or laughter, provoke thought. When a film does none of these, and still gets glowing reviews from the mainstream press, it's just flat-out depressing.

Not only Allen's character is flat: the film's story flatlines until the last 5 minutes. One daughter is hospitalized, supposedly seriously ill. We see her in the hospital bed once, then she's out, radiant. What was her illness? did Mom ever talk to her about it except for 5 seconds in the hospital room? No way. Mom is so distraught over daughter's illness she actually reveals humanity and cries. But does she respect her daughter's heartfelt wish that Dad be notified of her illness? No way. Such behavior is either errant nonsense or indicative of characters so devoid of human warmth and responsibility as to be completely unsympathetic to any slightly discerning audience.

Alas, American audiences are so famished for movies with real meat and heart and brain, this drivel is praised as funny and smart. Pathetic.

I had to try to avoid watching or listening to any scenes with Marisa Tomei's self-indulgent, whiny brat character. Fortunately, Bonnie Hunt as her much more grounded, intelligent friend saves the film. Robert Downey, Jr. never seemed to scratch more than the bare surface of his character, and it was hard to imagine Fisher Stevens, who plays Hunt's husband, as a serious love interest for a woman like her (or to avoid seeing him as anything but the second banana he played to Tom Selleck in Magnum, P.I. for years). However, the Italian scenery is beautiful beyond description, and the music and romantic Italian atmosphere is an interesting foil for these three very-American citizens. The film overall is a pleasant enough escape if you've nothing else to do on a rainy afternoon.

I didn't expect much from this movie, as I'd never heard of it before though I'd seen other Deanna Durbin movies. I was surprised to find that it was really charming. Durbin is at her most effervescent but somehow manages to avoid being "cutesy." In fact, the setbacks her character ("Patsy") encounters as she tries to get the orchestra going are sometimes genuinely moving. The movie juxtaposes scenes of the super-wealthy and the down-on-their-luck in this post-Depression movie to very good effect. Much of the comedy came from wonderful character acting by the always-excellent Eugene Palette, among others. All in all, a buoyant,fast-moving vehicle with the bonus of a few lovely orchestral numbers conducted by Stokowski. Definitely worth seeing for fans of Durbin and classic black-and-white films of the 30's.