Reviews

The reviews are so universally bad that they drew my curiosity. Despite being a competent production indeed the movie is a creative mess and a waste of talent. There is zero energy and chemistry between the not so likeable leads and their dialogue is terribly boring. The script feels like a lot of stacked ideas instead of being cleverly interlocked. The dog itself is wasted and just a device to move Jack next to Ellen.

If you are just curious just don't watch this movie. It's not even that bad to just laugh at it. I watched a faded 4:3 pan and scan print and it enhanced the experience in a bad way.

Everybody has that penultimate scene as their favorite. My favorite scene is the one where they are about to pass through a tunnel and the camera car stops chasing Nicholson's car and just parks on the side. After this we hear a siren and a dozed Maria Schneider delivers: "...the police". I could not believe my eyes. A convertible is also a great car to someone that don't want to be easily recognised *sarcasm*.

This movie itself is the real passenger as it rides on the prestige of its director. It is slow, boring, uninteresting, plotless and the performances are lethargic. Cinematography is great at certain points but a book can't be made only using pictures.

Nicholson does his best to incorporate the typical European dude wandering from scene to scene so prevalent among European directors.

Look at the poster. "Laugh!" It says. That is an ill conceived promotion material for this movie that is sold everywhere as a comedy when it's not. Viewers and reviewers get the wrong expectation and you see this huge amount of frustrated reviews. I didn't laugh once and I'm not mad.

It competently sells the illusion of a successful and a bomb act. We can see the increasing confidence of Sally's character as a performer and clearly see Hanks' confidence on-stage and inner turmoil as the movie goes.

The problem with this movie is that it's a small story in a sense that all we get are small victories and losses. I never felt that those characters were truly pursuing their passions by doing sacrifices. The polar extreme of this is De Niro's character in The King of Comedy, also struggling to break in this business.

It's a good movie, but incapable to make you laugh or cry.

So here we are again. Like the last year's HBO documentary, the villains of the past are our present day villains: the toxic masculinity, the angry white man and their awful music and the corporate greed (as seen through the eyes of 2020s corporate greed).

The said corporate greed stretched this documentary to three episodes and it's beyond imagination how similar in scope this is to the HBO self contained feature and how they checklist the same checkboxes of modern documentary making. If the HBO's is an average and flawed opinion-piece, this one is just lazy on not improving upon the former.

The lack of hard numbers on anything is very telling on its journalistic quality. It's like the filmmakers agreed to not talk about it. No number on profits, damages, casualties, arrests. The real victims themselves were pushed under the rug. It's really empty.

Maybe we can wait another 10 year to look at Woodstock '99 again. Then we can choose to blame what happened solely on the incompetent organizers.

Wikipedia does a brief mention that Big was inspired by the 1987 Italian movie Da Grande. So what's the answer?

Not at all. Similarities happens only with the fantasy element and the child x adult romantic pairing. The premise of both movies is the same but the characters and solutions to all the conflicts are completely different. It's not a remake in disguise.

The age gap of the main character is larger. It's much more funny a fat middle-aged dude behaving like a 8-year old that acts more like a absent-minded child. The Italian script makes great use of 'child logic' to create comedy.

Big is a great movie and only has problems if you look for them. Like the contradiction in Hank's character that is old enough to be already chasing women and his desire happens because of a girl, but he retreats to be obsessed with physical toys despite being also computer geek.

The corporate play that dominates Big feels forced. It happens because of his best friend, this script agent that makes things easier to move around for the movie's writers. Also the parents are away from the plot, conveniently. It's a competent script but overuses the 'Hollywood solutions'.

Da Grande in contrast has a very neat script that is very clever. It makes use of each person in the kid's life so we can see the interacting with them in both forms. And the kid's job as adult is hilarious, perfect fit!

Big is an iconic movie for the 80s and a key moment for Hanks' career, albeit it is a bit laboured plot-wise and slow. I found Da Grande funnier, faster-paced and especially more sweet. Too bad it's hard to watch it outside Italy.

Not at all. Similarities happens only with the fantasy element and the child x adult romantic pairing. The premise of both movies is the same but the characters and solutions to all the conflicts are completely different. It's not a remake in disguise.

The Italian movie has a very neat script that not only is funnier but is more clever in comparison. Big has a corporate play that dominates the movie while also putting the parents away for the sake of the plot. Da Grande makes intelligent use of the parents and the kid's teacher, the love interest. The age gap of the main character is larger, a 40 year-old behaving like a 8-year old that acts more like a absent-minded child than Tom Hanks character so there is more laughs. The script makes great use of 'child logic' in an adult setting.

Big is an iconic movie for the 80s and a key moment for Hanks' career, albeit it is a bit laboured and slow. I found Da Grande funnier, faster-paced and especially more sweet. Too bad it's hard to watch it outside Italy.

My 'movie stream provider' mistakenly swapped the 1989 Spielberg movie for this one. I gave a try.

I noticed right away the low-budget feel and corner-cutting (the on screen app messages are a terrible idea). It makes good use of locations, though. The acting is amateurish but I remained curious about the plot.

Big mistake. The situations seems like a set up for something that never comes. That's a pedestrian movie that won't last in your memory. I think writer/director/actor lost the opportunity of doing something more ambitious given the creative control.

For the Spielberg movie, I also gave a 2/10.

The first ten minutes of this movie sets the tone. It's a commercial asking the viewer to buy the rest of the movie. Knowing how exaggerated the world inside the TV commercials is, that is how insincere and dumb the writing and the characters of this movie are. Spielberg here is subtle as a hammer because cinema is "magic" and "entertainment" for popcorn digestion.

What to watch instead of this overproduced sugarcoated mishmash of ideas?

If you want a better movie with a ghost, watch Ghost(1990).

If you want an (excellent) movie with hydroplanes and masterful direction, Porco Rosso (1989).

Want Hunter and Dreyfuss in a better romantic pairing: Once Around (1991).

Need Hunter in an exceptional acting role, Broadcast News (1987).

Imagine those people doing Letterman, Carson or the Dangerfield show many ages ago. Some of them probably could come with some killer material for an once in a lifetime chance. But in a safe environment with a non-hostile crowd and under the wing of a big name the acceptance is almost guaranteed so why bother? This includes Mr. Burr himself with his new L. A friends. This "special" feels more like an auction and it's just a collection of little disasters.

I'm kinda glad that people forgot the reality-show format and can't spot one in plain sight. It is a bygone era of entertainment and this miscategorized 'documentary' felt nostalgic to me. The always-on camera, heavy music, the dramatic shots, heavy montage and exaggerated character archetypes are all hallmarks of reality TV. Although, beautifully presented for modern audiences.

The money and effort put into this production could be used to actually expose her victims and the irresponsibility of her practices. This will be harmless for Teal's reputation in the long run.

Very superficial documentary. When I heard Depp's voice narration I felt that this was a compromised account of the band. I mean, Jim. Both music and the other band members are ignored so we are left to see at distance a very sad character with a rock bottom trajectory with zero explanations, insights or recollections, just a barely awake Depp mumbling known facts. It is a wasted opportunity for fans and a disservice for the band's legacy.

Watched the whole movie without checking the runtime. It's that entertaining. It is a good movie but has its problems.

I was quite annoyed by character interactions and some lengthy monologues. It's quite unnatural talking with rudimentary characterizations and archetypes (the managers of the theater being good examples). Except for the main character everyone else seems to be acting out their parts and have shallow backgrounds (the girl's driving skills explanation came straight from the Initial D anime). Given the stage play centric plot maybe it was intentional that every secondary character has a cardboard personality but that is one of the problems with this movie.

Dumbfounded I watched some Youtube essays about this movie. There's a lot going on but I found everything handled in a more cryptic manner than subtle. The many building blocks of this movie's world are highly improbable or conveniently placed and not in a clever way. You can't cheat your way on depth.

Finally the movie thin score and aesthetics are nothing special. They washed out all other colors to make the stupid red car more prominent. Maybe the main character was more faithful to this car than to his wife.

Japanese cinema already proved to be a lot better than this.

This is NOT a comedy at all. It's a full-time Claude Sautet drama and not less bleak on its twits than usual.

Having watched four Claude Sautet movies in a row, it does not feel any different than his other movies as some reviewers are stating.

The template for Sautet movies are slice of life stories with a strict detachment where you are constantly observing the main character interacting with a rich setting and well-written characters, but never living through it as a viewer. Is this bad? Not at all. The movies are great, but It's a very unsettling watching experience not really being there with the character.

For this movie, the featured restaurant is just a place and the job title just a working class job. It just could be anything else as it doesn't have no impact to the story. Alex (Yves Montand) spends just about 20% of the movie's running time dressed as a waiter. Unlike other Sautet movies he does not have a any significant emotional bond with anybody in the movie and not much going on for himself. It makes you wonder why this movie was made.

I didn't know what to make of this movie until the end when I figured out that this could be a nice graphic novel.

All people that the main character interacts have an over-the-top cynism that turns them into comic book characters. The whole feels like aimed at edgy teenagers. I can frame in my head comic pages in the most typical 90's fashion using most of the scenes. Even the visuals have mostly hard shadows with lots of contrast.

But that's my wild interpretation. The movie doesn't implies that and feels very offbeat despite being a competent production with well know actors.

Speaking of 'offbeat', my main motivation to watch this was to check Stewart Copeland's musical score out of sheer curiosity after wathing the drama 'Raining Stones' that he also scored. It's terrible. The main opening has this terrible opera singer over synthetized music that incompetently drives the movie. Dude can't write a compelling melody and it drags down this movie even more.

Quite uneven movie. Starts very slow, spend too long in episodes that could be abbreviated then squeezes the final act in a dubious conclusion amid the general tone of the movie. Despite that the direction is strong and the acting excellent.

The soundtrack by famous musician Stewart Copeland from The Police is a tremendous disappointment. Made on the cheap with synthetizers is really disconnected from the bleakness of the movie. Not only the limited musical cues are badly placed but they also lack any melodic quality (one of the themes sounds like random notes in a sequencer against uninspired chords). It really gives no support for scenes and characters.

Truffaut being such an scholar and auteur seems to be trying to bruteforce his way create great cinema pulling from a toolbox that is too heavy for himself to carry. The result is almost an parody of drama and even himself.

The plodding plot marked by pointless scenes, awkward fade-outs, gratuitous jump-cuts and disposable characters. The old lady at the very start breaking the fourth-wall for no reason was just a lazy way to open the movie were already nothing much happens. The foreshadowing of events is very obvious and pedestrian. The musical cue is heavy handed as a bad soap opera.

Truffaut is such a big name tossed around cinema-related lists and with this expectation all you can get in La Femme d'à côté is such a sad exercise in storytelling and filmmaking.

Having watched only two of his movies, the other being the equally dubious Farenheit 451, I still have to fall under Truffaut's spell to have any praise (and forgiveness) for this movie.

I was expecting some modern contrived account on Lennon, but this is a surprinsingly in-depth and honest recollection of Lennon's early life. This documentary takes you to places and talks to people (most very obscure) that have really interesting memories of Lennon before stardom. This is kinda hardcore for a casual Beatles fan but still enjoyable. Recommended.

How those glowing reviews can be so naive? This is a con job. There's very little footage of performances and a LOT of padding, it's unbelievable. A good online article called 'Jazz on a Summer's Day - A Contrarian View' explains how unprepared the filmmakers were and how ill-conceived this project was.

Despite the '100 hundred feet of film' shot and five 35mm cameras, no shot holds for more than 10 seconds. I'm not even talking about alternate camera angles (most at audience ground level), it just cuts to unrelated footage of boats or a fake audience assembled by the filmmakers long after the fact.

Took the gamble of watching this after First Blood (1982) from the same director Ted Kotcheff. Split Image shares the same hallmarks of the former: a slightly cartoonish world and shallow characterizations. O'Keefe performance is amateurish and Woods is laughably over the top. Underwhelming script and lackluster acting makes this movie a pass.

After about half of the second episode I completely lost the interest on this. Too much filler.

There's plenty of archival footage in this doc itself that can tell objectively the horror of what happened. But then there is plenty of pretentious, preachy and warped cultural 'analysis' of the end of the 90's by a triumvirate assembled to shift the blame on the omnipresent angry white man. This is 2020s media at its worst.

Male fantasies in the 90's were portrayed in cinema by either violent action packed flicks or lowbrow straight-to-VHS erotic movies. This movie aims higher and it is really a masterful effort in narrative and visuals.

Although the accusations of being a self-indulgent, pretentious and a confusing movie are right. I believe the movie's premise is too clever at the expense of the viewer's suspension of disbelief.

It's both a great and frustrating movie.

The user review from user Bob Pr. Written in 14 October 1999 nails this movie. So read it if you are confused (like I was).

I became so bored while watching this that I wandered off to the unusually massive Wikipedia article on this film. The troubled production and release has more drama, characters and plot progression than the actual thing.

Judging by other reviews the side aspects are what trigger people apparent love for this movie, but there is no actual good storytelling here. You can be in awe of the lavish animation and the (attempt of) world building but the slow-paced story, weak characters and forgettable politics can't glue your eyes to the screen.

I've been punishing myself watching all Dudley Moore's movies from the 80's. His usual unsympathetic movie persona is here: A successful man in his field despite lacking professionalism that inevitably advances on his leading ladies while running and screaming through corridors in labored plots.

Blake Edwards tries to sugarcoat Moore's dubious moral compass in this farce. Moore is a caring husband/lover that desperately wants to be a family man but shamelessly cheats his love interests. This dissonance in values never goes away and kinda ruins the lighthearted tone of this comedy.

I loved Ann Reinking as the innocent perfect wife. The really good acting on her part that kept this movie entertaining. Amy Irving's is not exactly a counterpoint and could be more fleshed out. Moore does a competent job being more awake in the role than in his later movies.

The plot is nothing special and there's a unfortunate shadow of Arthur (1981) in the relationship between Rob and Leo mirroring Arthur and Hobson that is underdeveloped and seems tackled into the movie. Curiously, in Lovesick(1983) Moore's character also has an older figure that his character listen to and try to sort his problems.

Not a bad movie, but not good either.

Play adaptations must have interesting characters to carry all the talking. If the characters aren't interesting the dialogue have to be exceptional. Neither the case here.

Pfeiffer and Pacino are so ordinary and unlikable. It seems that the filmmakers deliberately choose to make them beyond ordinary but forgot to create some empathy for the viewer.

She's a waitress and he is an ex-convict and nothing happens for the next two hours except that she gets progressively more annoying and Pacino just is a creep one-note romantic stalker.

The supporting cast try hard to be quirk and interesting but it doesn't blend specially with the inexistent 'serious drama' unfolding.

Mainstream drama at its worst.