Reviews

Film is first and foremost a story-telling medium. Film is at its best when it has straight forward story, strong characters, a linear plot that is easy to follow, and a theme you don't have to search for. If this had any of these, it went over my head.

When people go into an art gallery, there are those who look at the art on the walls and ponder, and (with honest sincerity, or the need to show pretentious artistic knowledge) say, "Hmmm, very deep. It truly moves me." Then there are those who look at it, with head askew, and say "Huh?" I am the latter. I don't know, maybe I am just a landscape and flowers kind of guy. I could never pretend that I understood and liked wine, either. I am more of a coffee guy, with just a little cream and sugar to take the bitter out.

This film seemed slow, drawn out, plodding, and all over the place with unintroduced characters, a story that roamed, and a theme that never penetrated for me. The beautiful cinematography simply could not make for for what it lacked. I had to strain to hear what little dialog there was, I had to strain to see through the persistent darkness, and I had to strain just to understand what it was about. Maybe it was a cultural thing, but when we strive today for a cross-cultural awareness, I felt left behind.

Film as art for art sake has never interested me. I just wondered what the point was, and that question was never answered...for me.

It passed him by. The great director King Vidor's time is over.

The premise of this little movie is excellent. The execution not so much. You can see the filmmaker inside him, but he has lost his stuff. You can see he knows how to frame a shot, edit a scene, and compose a script. He has forgotten how to make it great.

The film itself has a good message to deliver, but will any one receive the message in this package? It was a painful watch, knowing what had been.

The director of "The Parade," "Duel in the Sun," and "War and Peace" has lost his mojo. Too bad. That said there are things I used to be great at that I can't do any more, either.

The Parade's Gone By.

I must say it is quite a remarkable little film. Very impressive. I can't quite decide if it is a low budget professional film, or a high budget amateur film. Either way, it is clear that it was a work of passion. The attention to detail was impressive. The filmmaker knew his trade. Interweaving the models with the full size was done very well. Editing was superb. Camera work and effects were well done. I can only imagine what it could have been if it had the proper backing.

Oh, and the score was good, too. Actually, it was superb. The sign of a good score is one that becomes another character of the story, and they did that very well. It was just the right amount of understatement, clearly it was meant purposely not draw attention to itself. Bravo.

Bringing this old film to the attention of the public was a work unto itself, and well worth the effort. This is something to be truly proud of.

Clearly, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" got its inspiration from Mr. Lyford.

If there were ever a movie with absolutely nothing redeeming about it, this was the one. If you absolutely love movie crap, you need to see this one.

These were two hours that I wish I could recover, but, alas...they are lost...forever. I wish I could say "next time I will know better" but there will be no next time for this one.

I probably won't watch any more.

The producers and director forgot a basic tenant of capturing and keeping an audience: story and characters come before special effects. You can have the greatest effects in the world, but if you story isn't compelling, and your characters lack depth, the audience will go away.

The original series understood that. TNG understood that. Hell, even DS9 and Voyager understood that. Strength comes from the story lines, not the effects.

Hey, maybe the second episode is better, but asking me to pay 9 bucks a month just to find out...there is other and better media around that won't cost me more money. So I am going to spend the 9 bucks at Starbucks and watch something else...until they release it on the CW.

In the theater "expository" is when the actor talks to the audience. It is sometimes necessary to further the play, but is generally thought to be a weakness of writing. In the case of film, it should be absolutely unnecessary. As a visual medium, any expository should be easily handled by the visuals. When it is used, it is a sure sign that the screenwriter (and by extension, the director) just couldn't find a way to express it any other way except having the actors talk to (or at) the audience.

In the case of "It's a Wonderful Life" the Angels talk to the audience and it works, moving the story forward. In "The Night of the Hunter" it fails miserably. The morality tale should be carried by the story, not by bible verses directed to the audience.

Another form of expository is when the camera is used to show the passage of time or distance, usually through montage. Hitchcock was a master of the visual montage. His technique is crisp and sharp. Other masters of the visual montage are Orson Welles, John Ford, Wes Anderson, and Steven Spielberg. Unfortunately Laughton's visual montages were slow and plodding, using animals in the foreground of the scene to show the passage of distance. It was a good thought, but it didn't work.

Laughton was troubled that his first directorial attempt was a box office and critical failure, and he never directed again. That is a shame, because in spite of these weaknesses, most first time directors have failings and they get better over time. Laughton clearly had directorial chops. He just needed more experience.

There are many directorial "one-hit-wonders." First attempts are great, and everything after that fails. There have many many actors who turned director. Some failed, and some succeeded.

Laughton showed so much potential as a director. There was so much to be proud of, that he could have overcome the weaknesses in later films, chalking it up to a learning experience.

The camera work was, at times, exquisite. When the actors were not lined up across the screen (a directorial weakness), he moved them in and out of the foreground and frame (a strength) with the grace of a veteran. The lighting was masterful. Transition between night and day, and the use of light and shadow showed that Laughton had skill.

The story that the script is based on is one of the films great strengths, but one of the great weaknesses was the script. Stilted and unnatural dialogue held the cast and director back. The expository, that I mentioned earlier, is something that is used with great effectiveness in a novel, where expository is how things get explained, talking in the third person directly to the reader. James Agee, the script writer, was a novelist. This explains why expository happened. Clearly they should have put the script in the hands of a seasoned screen writer, so the director and actors would have had better substance to work with.

Now, let's really get positive. The characters in the story were strong, and the casting backed that up with strong, exceptional performances. Clearly Laughton could have been regarded as an actor's director. He knew what the actors needed from him. As an actor, he possessed natural skill, and was backed by directorial masters. He learned these lessons well, and directed his actors with the skill of a veteran.

Mitchum, Winters, and particularly Gish turned in performances that absolutely saved the film and turned it into a film well worth watching. When the script didn't get in the way, the supporting cast was also very good.

I am not a big fan of Robert Mitchum, but when he plays evil, it is truly evil. Between this performance and "Cape Fear" I could say that Mitchum (along with perhaps Lon Chaney and Lee Marvin) may be one of the most evil actors ever.

Two time Oscar winner, Shelley Winters plays the weak and vulnerable mother. She is emotionally and (sometimes) physically beat down. You can see her try to maintain dignity when she is told she is unworthy. The conflict in her weighs heavily. She tries to hold her head high, but just cannot keep it up for very long. Winters masterfully delivers. She may be the most sympathetic character in the film.

Lillian Gish. Ah, Miss Lillian. La Gish. Maybe the greatest actress we have ever had. From the time she comes on the screen, she dominates and the whole tone changes. Even Mitchum cannot keep up with her-it becomes her film. She has a strength and a softness that she brings to every role. If you ever get a chance to see "Broken Blossoms," "Orphans of the Storm," "Way Down East," or "The Wind" take the time.

Film acting is, in all cases, in the eyes. It is the eyes that project what is going on in the soul and the mind of the character. Gish is a master of using her eyes to convey what is inside. (There are a very few actors that effectively do this.) If Gish never smiled, never frowned or grimaced, never used her body to convey anything, it would be fine. She acts from her eyes. Her smiles and grimaces are delivered by her eyes. When she looks at someone, she really sees them. She looks inside them. There is an understanding that is conveyed by the way she sees. There is really no acting involved...she is being.

This is really a film worth seeing. You should let go of the weaknesses, and focus in on the strengths. In spite of everything, you will not be disappointed. I gave it a 9 out of 10.

I have heard of this movie all my life. At age 65 I finally took the time to see it.

After all the build up I guess I am a little disappointed, what with the Oscar, and all. Guess I was expecting something hard boiled like Stella Dallas or Mildred Pierce. Instead I got Danielle Steele.

Given the Oscar competition that year, it is a mystery how this performance was rated above the rest. I can only figure it was because it was so far out of the box for Rogers, because the performance, viewed objectively, was certainly not better than the rest. It was more like Judy Garland, in the Wizard of Oz, than Bette Davis in Jezebel.

The Trumbo script was draining. Trumbo was always hot and cold. This one was chilly.

Dennis Morgan and James Craig were tepid, sappy. I guess by comparison, Rogers performance gleamed, which ain't sayin' much.

Sam Wood's direction was, for the most part, flat. Actors lined up across the set, like furniture. It lacked depth of character as well as depth of set and depth of focus. Flat, flat, flat.

However, Robert De Grasse's cinematography was quite remarkable. Everything was well lit (maybe over lit)and, more importantly, well shadowed to represent the darkness of the story.

In a few years I will have to give it another try, but for now, I move on.

Let's have some great fight scenes and string them together with the old familiar actors, and see if we can fool everyone into thinking its a good movie.

What do you mean "stay true to the story?" We have to stretch one novel onto three really long movies. We've got all these great sets and great costumes and props and what not. We gotta use 'em. We'll tell them it's good, they gotta believe us.

We'll reuse all of the old special effects. If they worked before they should work again. These fans will buy anything. They are so easy to fool.

When we are done, what movie do you want to make next?

What a horrible mess of a movie. Over produced, over directed, sloppily edited. Poor dialog, over-acted.

Look, Ron Howard is only a fair director, at best. Tom Hanks is a milk toast of an actor. Together they do marginal films, the best of which was Apollo 13. But this one was a low point for both.

Howard, fascinated with effects and technology left Hanks to his own devices (as, I understand he is want to do with actors) and Hanks failed as a self-director (recently saw "Sully," in which Eastwood left Hanks to direct himself-with very good results). The never ending scrunching up of Hanks face was irritating, and the digital closeups brought out every pour in his face.

Howard kept the camera constantly moving, irritatingly moving. And the edits were so fast and furious, it was impossible to focus long enough to understand the action. The plot was so thin and the characters so underdeveloped one has to wonder if all the effects and technology were used as a cover for the other deficits.

The single high point was Sidse Babett Knudsen as Elizabeth. And that because every other character was so superficial that she appeared deep.

Another irritating point was the use of stereotypical villains. Couldn't they be a little original?

All in all, it was two hours I can never get back. When the fourth in the series is released, I will turn on a Beverly Hillbillies rerun instead.

Maybe a thoughtful concept, but the execution was mediocre at best. The direction was stiff, the script overly sentimental, and the players over-acted by a country mile. The dialog was out of a Hallmark greeting card--sappy and affectatious. Tremendous dramatic license was obviously taken.

I really had difficulty finding anything redeeming about it, and my vote (of 5) was generous, to say the least.

Made by Warners, surely they could have turned the idea over to their script department and given it some real flesh--the idea really deserves to be a feature length film as the story is one we are familiar with, and the characters are historical. Perhaps in the hands of MGM or Paramount, who had a much better sense of history, it could have had more merit.

The first thing I have to ask is "Can anybody really be that nerdy?" Once I accepted the fact that the characters are way over the top stereotypes, and suspended my disbelief, I found the film very funny and quite cute.

We always want to root for the underdog, and this cast is full of them from top to bottom. Do we see something of ourselves in them? Maybe. Even the oddest or the grossest characters come off somehow lovable. It is especially good to know that even the strangest boy can still get even the oddest girl--after all it is a love story, isn't it?

I'm sure the people of Preston, Idaho take issue with the portrayal of their little town as full of oddballs, but I understand that they have actually come to embrace the notoriety the film has brought them and held a Napoleon Dynamite festival this past spring.

Well acted, well written, and well directed, not to mention beautiful cinematography.

My son made me watch this movie with him--and I'm glad he did!

A pretty bad remake of a pretty bad original. The only thing shining about ithis film is Billy Bob, who does his usual outstanding job. Greg Kinnear is a poor replacement for Vic Morrow, who was a very mean man. Marcia Gay Harden is way over the top--too bad because I usually like her. Sammi Kane Kraft (in the Tatum O'Neal role) is a great ball player but not much of an actress. Must have been hired for her pitching talent.

The script pretty much sucks. Not nearly as cleaver as the original. The directing was mediocre, as was most everything else about this film.

Pretty much a film to avoid.

My son made me watch this camp take-off, and I'm glad he did.

A wonderfully funny homage to George Romero, its got more zombies, blood, and gore than any movie I've ever seen. Though thin on plot, it's a well written and well directed film, more than could be said for any of Romero's films. Great cinematography with long traveling shots, well developed characters (and I do mean characters) and a very subtle build up to the introduction to the first Zombies (though we all know its coming).

If you are looking for some good, bloody fun and are a fan of camp, check out Shaun of the dead.

Matthew Broderick and Hank Azaria must have been terribly in need of dough to attach their names to this god-awful tripe. Raymond Burr is rolling over in his grave. Now I have to make up 7 more lines of text to get this review posted when there is really no more that needs to be said, or that can be said. Oh, wait. Did I mention that I really thought this movie was the worst movie of all time? Worse than "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes." Worse than "Gigli." Worse than "Police Academy." Worse than "Hercules in New York." Should I go on? I still have two more lines to fill...worse than "Surf Nazis Must Die." Worse than "Kung Pow:Enter the Fist." OK...OK...I've filled up 10 lines. I'll stop.

If you are a fan of the silent period, this series is a must see.

Interviews with the silent stars, producers, directors, writers, and craft people, as well as more footage of the era than you can possibly imagine. Brownlow and Gill, two of Hollywood's premier historians, have put together this highly entertaining documentary series and are able to capture the feel and the look of early Hollywood.

Particularly interesting is that each episode is a theme. From comedies, to westerns, to a particular star or director, to the frequent scandals, each episode has insight into what made Hollywood tick.

Those of us who see the silent film as a beautiful art form marvel at the beauty of the technique when sound doesn't get in the way. Brownlow and Gill have found footage frequently thought to be destroyed but found in someone's garage or basement.

I am raising my son to appreciate the silent film, and with the help of this series he has become a fan of Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, and many others.

Thanks to David and Kevin.

A dark Western that ranks with "Liberty Valance" as a top Western-Noir film. This great film has a ranking that would place it in the top 250, but lacks enough votes.

"Ox-Bow" is rarely viewed or mentioned, yet most consider it to be a great film. Fonda's slow style is perfect for this psychological drama, and Henry Morgan delivers a very deep and compassionate performance. Dana Andrews may be miscast but delivers. Though slow-paced its characters, plot line and score keep the viewer glued. It's a haunting story with a twist at the end.

Please vote for this fine film and see if we can get it into the top 250!