Reviews

My big problem with this movie is that there are times when it seems the director wanted to tell the story in real time. The bulk of the viewing audience is very accustomed to the abbreviations in the action in order to keep the pace exciting. It may have been that the director through dragging out some of the sequences would help build suspense. What it really did was to underscore the lack of suspense inherent to the story. Watching the missiles for minutes on end only made this viewer realize just how little I cared by that point. Part of me was rooting for the meteor, for mercy's sake. Given the era, and nearly ten years of riveting disaster movies that went before it, it's inexcusable that this one couldn't keep us on the edges of our seats.

60 seconds, 60 seconds, 60 seconds… you missed the point, really. This isn't about stars, characters, plot. The cars are your stars. I watched this version back to back with the original, and wow, there is really no comparison. This loose remake tried way too hard to re-think such a basic concept that didn't need so much re-thinking. The original was low-budget and high-speed, which worked. That's the movie it was. For this version to share a name with that version is akin to false advertising. This one was without a doubt low-speed and certain more high-budget than the original. Attempts at humor? Forced. Excitement about the illicit behavior of stealing cars? Not there. It is derivative, not of its source material, but of various other heist-style films, by trying to find suspense in the behind-the-scenes drama of who ordered the car thefts and why and what was going to happen if the team didn't come through. Whatever. Let's just get some cars on the road and see 'em wreck!

Check the original for a movie that lives up to its premise. This one is a vehicle for anything other than cars. (Yes, that's deliberately pointing to irony that wasn't intended by the filmmakers.)

This is a very good movie about teenagers coming of age, facing the experiences of growing up. There is enough drama in the realities that we can all identify with and there is humor found in these ordinary scenes. Overall, the film is a genuine paean to being young and facing that point at which you're not so young anymore. A must-see for any serious movie lover.

And for the official line count, I'll point out that there is a car chase, a sex scene and a lot of good-natured scenes of boys being boys. Nothing in the movie is played for the sake of making something out of the past that wasn't really there.

I can accept that the main characters in this movie are lost and that they become prisoners, but whether this is a separate universe is barely pertinent. Same trees, same animals, same language. Just insert a Hyperborian culture and the necessary mystical villain and you have a reason for Richard Hatch to swing a sword.

Two big things lacking in the budget - props and a director of photography. The sword the hero swings looks like a scrap of chrome, cut to form. The shots throughout reminded me of a soap opera. Probably, these fight scenes are just like the fight scenes from every big-budget blockbuster, with the difference being, the scenes in this movie are from one angle, motionless, and not edited for any effect. Somewhere between properly-staged cinema and poorly-staged theater, you find movies like this, which in addition to lack of funding for any of the special stuff that movies rely on, has no pacing, no urgency, and mostly, no universe.

The action themes were nice, but the silly parts of the score like when bad guys are thrown from a cliff really missed the comedic mark. I mean, really, were those pennywhistles and kazoos?

This movie sneaks up on you, despite the basic premise being laid out early on. It reveals slowly, with great pacing. The science fiction aspect of the plot is daring, but the story hangs on to it without getting drowned in concepts. The characters, the acting, are exactly what they need to be to make you care what happens next, and the ending is totally satisfying. You don't want it to end until the end, and when it does, you'll smile, knowing that it all worked out.

Asks the same question The Matrix asked, but without the pretension, without the slow-mo fighting, just with a perfect blend of science fiction, metaphysics and heart.

I am impressed with the level of production values in this movie. The effects are so much better than is typical for Turkish cinema, and I think the popularity and success of the Valley of the Wolves series and now movies begins to take Turkish film to a more competitive level, internationally. I now this one got attention for the way it mixes the politics of a very sensitive region with a good action drama. Still, it's mostly action drama. This is obvious in the generally dry acting jobs, even by the Turkish familiars and the special guest Americans, slumming for a worthwhile role in this ambitious little film.

Anyway, I won't go into the particulars of all the inaccuracies in this film. I'm sure the producers knew what they were sacrificing in the simple depictions of Americans, Kurds, and of course the Turks. Typical of Turkish cinema, everyone is a cartoon - a cutout of a real person, spouting the necessary lines to carry the plot forward. However, intersperse this with a few genuine scenes of cultural diversity and a backdrop of a truly sensitive political bed of coals, and this is an enjoyable bit of entertainment.

The suicide bomber scene was especially effective in its portrayal of the real horror of such an act. My biggest complaint with the film was that I couldn't pinpoint where most of the action was tacking place. The trigger fingers on the Americans labeled it as somewhere outside of Kurdish-controlled regions, where Americans have never patrolled, but every caption mentioned Suleymaniye or Erbil, which are definitely Kurdish regions.

The subtitles in the film I watched were out of sync by about 30 seconds, so I'm glad that a) so much of the dialogue was in English and b) I am familiar enough with Arabic and Turkish (and a touch of Kurdish that found its way into the script) to plug in the translations into the appropriate places) This isn't the fault of the filmmakers, but a warning to any non-Turkish speakers trying to view various copies of the film

All around, a movie, not too far off of what a Western depiction of the region and its internal conflicts would appear to be. It has a story and uses the setting just as that - a setting, not as the story itself. For the real story, every viewer must either judge for himself, or speak to those who have been through it.

When I watch a movie like this, I become increasingly aware of the filmmaking behind the film itself. I watch chase scenes that have nothing chasing the people and I imagine the director trying to give motivation, "You're running," and the camera bounces around to accentuate the manic running through the trees. Even the score builds frenetically at that point, to emphasize the urgency of the chase.

Yet, there was no dinosaur chasing them. There was no attempt at a composite shot of any kind. There was a one-second shot of what may have been the standard Tyrannosaurus Rex, but even that blip of imagery doesn't make it into the chase scene.

The animated dinosaurs don't looks as convincing as those the Discovery Channel has been showing for the past decade, never mind the ones in Jurassic Park back in 1993. I think it's been shown too many times in the past that a lot can be made with just a little, but there was no creative spirit behind the effects in this film to bring the scenes to life. Sadly, I think quadrupling the budget would have had no impact on the effect of the way the dinosaurs were used.

If you like lame adventure movies, this is watchable as a point of reference along the long history of such movies.

Remember how in Dracula, they used existing classical music, which enhanced the mood and the action perfectly, so much so that hearing those themes from Swan Lake brings to mind images of Bela Lugosi?

Well, In the Name of the King seems to have not had enough budget for a proper composer, but the music very often doesn't fit in the slightest. Often it seems almost comical, such as when Farmer is saving his two mates from the river.

Unfortunately, as the score distracts, it is least present at times when it would be nice to be distracted by the poor acting. Look at the credits and you won't expect much acting, but most of the lines are delivered as if they're being read for the first time and the actors don't really know where the story is going. Sometimes it sounds like they ad lib, like saying "What the hell does that mean?" in such a colloquial way, just after asking with great feeling "What games are the gods playing with me?" and getting a response that sounds creatively zen.

The effects of course aren't special. They pale next to movies of the same era. This is all about budget of course, so I won't criticize too much. Much can be done with little, given the right eye for the look of the scenes, and these scenes stage very well, even if they look like castoffs from the Lord of the Rings prop department.

The story isn't very interesting, the acting isn't very interesting, and the filming isn't very exciting. Overall, it's only of interest to devoted fans of a.) any of the leads, just to complete the chore of watching all their respective works; b.) the fantasy-action genre in general, although this only moderately qualifies as either or c.) movies that are bad in the not- laughable way.

P.S. I find it interesting that IMDb suggests that I might also like movies with much shorter names such as Avatar, Willow and Beowulf. I guess they figure once I've read the unnecessarily long name of this movie I'd be glad for a movie I could talk about.

I was expecting a bit more of the wry and understated humor that I know both of the principals are capable of. Especially, when you label it "from the people who brought you 'Juno' " it misrepresents the type of movie this is.

This is a sweet movie, where people with good intentions have to face a couple of key mistakes and start to move on in the direction that's truly best for them. Aniston's character, Kassie, wants to be a mother, despite not finding a mate and satisfied only to find a source of genetic material. Bateman's character, Wally, wants her to be happy, but he seems to know that she's grasping for something.

Through a strange, but believable series of events, the switch occurs and Wally especially must face something unexpected when he's reunited with Kassie and her 6 year old son Sebastian.

This is far from the best film for either of the leads, and it's nothing even remotely close to a romantic comedy. It's not very comedic or very romantic. It's quirky, which is perhaps the only thing it has in common with "Juno." There really isn't any chemistry between Aniston and Bateman, despite their very easygoing natures.

It's a sweet film, but I believe it must have looked better on paper than it did on film.

I know that comparing an adaptation to the source book is too close to not looking at the film for its own merits. I won't go into a line by line list of the changes, but the changes bring nothing to the film. They only take away. The changes seem designed to make the movie more like a typical animated film, which the story wouldn't have been had it stuck closer to the themes of the book.

The three characters who really have a story in the book are Roscuro, Miggery Sow, and of course, Despereaux. In the movie, only Despereaux is painted with any real background and character, and all of that is noticeably different from the character in the book. The subtleties that made him so charming are gone, replaced by a devil-may-care nature. Where the Despereaux in the book found heroism in himself, where he didn't expect it, the Despereaux in the film was depicted as being born for heroism. This difference sums up the change in theme and direction of the movie. It becomes much more typical because of this change, without room for character growth. Roscuro and Miggery Sow are similarly rewritten so that they don't develop. The plot is rewritten around them, with strange additions such as the chef and the man made of food.

At first, I was confused by comparisons to Ratatouille, but after seeing the first twenty minutes of this movie, I understood it, and perhaps they have something in that comparison. I can't think of a good reason for some of the additions that came out of the blue into the movie adaptation.

This movie is worth watching for the way it demonstrates what effort it takes to make a truly good screen play. The idea here is intriguing and even the sparse setting is workable, but the scripting is a series of leaps in thought - contrivances of conversation serving the screenwriter in his attempt to bring out certain points within his idea.

John Oldman claims to have been alive for about 14,000 years, a fact which he has pieced together in part thanks to modern findings which help him date his origins. He reveals this to his friends on the day they are helping him move out of his home, in his usual pattern of leaving town before people realize he never ages. The idea has such potential, but it seems thrown into a movie and not thought very well in terms of the actual script.

Firstly, John's stammering reveal of his situation doesn't show any of the experience of someone who has been moving on every 10 years for over a dozen millennia. He knows why he is moving on, and yet he isn't prepared to cover it with a simple believable story. With his experience, he shouldn't even have to cover it. He should have developed ways to move from one town to another without the slightest suspicion about his leaving. But this is the idea that winds through the whole script.

Secondly, none of the reactions were handled credibly, not in the words of the characters and not in the portrayals by the actors. When someone begins to tell you that he's been alive for 14,000 years, it will take more than an afternoon of chatting about it to convince an educated person, which all of these characters are, knowing each other through their professorships at a local university.

When it comes to the reveal inside this tale, it's a wonder anyone is still taking him seriously, and yet they do. It's clear this was an attempt by the writer to get the viewer to take the tale seriously as well, but it doesn't carry. We're left thinking the professors are a bunch of idiots.

Overall, the characters are too constructed, and the script too perfunctory for such a novel idea. The concept is worth a rework.

I still really like this movie, but the whole story seems almost an afterthought in the wake of the first two films. It only seems that way, though. The story weaves together the hints of Lisbeth Salander's background that were given in the first two films. Truly, there's not much story to it, although the movie does find a reasonable way to reveal the whole truth. Maybe it's my lack of knowledge of the Swedish legal system, but I was lost in the simplistic approach to the courtroom drama. Perhaps it was movie-making shorthand, in order to fit things in to a certain time, but I can't imagine that things would be so uncomplicated in the end.

The expected climax of Lisbeth's showdown with Neidermann was resolved pretty well. This isn't Linda Hamilton in the Terminator movies. It was moderately realistic. However, throughout the movie, I was let down by the lack of suspense and intrigue that was such a hallmark of the first two films.

My favorite parts of this film were when the story touched on the connection between Lisbeth and Blomqvist. In subtle ways, it's clear that her contact with him has affected the way she treats other people. She is no longer completely mistrustful of everyone automatically. But, by the end scene, it's also clear that she is not suddenly open either. The ending was very anti- Holllywood in nature, and it really worked for me. I wouldn't mind a fourth installment, if the story can support the characters to their best effect.

I give it a 7 on the strength of the acting of the two principals and the character interaction between them even when they're not sharing screen time.

I lament that Hollywood is attempting to remake this trilogy. This movie is so perfectly constructed, building on the first and developing the back story of the girl - Lisbeth Salander, it doesn't need to be tarnished by a remake which can only be less than what this is.

The pacing of the story, the subtleties of the actors, and the most realistic bare knuckles fist fight I've seen in film - this film has everything in perfect balance. The action is all in character and serves the story. I observed just how much I, as a viewer, have been jaded by the typical Hollywood method of hacking a screenplay with cliché moments. I thought I knew what would come next, and thankfully, I was surprised. It wasn't a twist at the end, just a perfectly natural end instead of a contrivance to prolong things.

Although I haven't read the books which are the source of this trilogy, it seems these screenplays stay very true to all the story elements and details of them. The stories are so vivid and thoughtful that I can't imagine they were chopped up for the screen, as so many good books are.

I can hardly wait to watch the third film.

The story in this movie seems simple, but it's the kind of story that could go in any direction. Several people find themselves in a series of room, many of which are booby trapped. This fact is presented to us before any of the characters themselves, so there's no surprise to us that they face danger at every turn. The suspense of this, and the fact that there are no Hollywood stars around keeps the viewer not knowing who may die and how.

Beyond this simple fact, there are the relationships that develop between and among characters. While a truly thoughtful writer could have carried this aspect in other directions, the story here keeps those moments restrained. The script is very effective in moving things along, with a few contrived leaps in logic, but it's all in the characters, and it just so happens that they're right. Imagining myself in the same situation, I can't believe that I would automatically assume myself to be inside a giant cube formation, but in this film, and each of the following ones, that assumption is made by the characters without enough clues to work with.

The mixture of personality types is intriguing and turns out to be key to the movie. Each character is presented well enough, although none of the acting stands out. Then, this movie isn't about acting, it's truly all about the suspense of moving from one room to another, and trying to outthink the characters as they reach their conclusions about the purpose of the whole thing.

People are trapped in a series of interconnecting rooms, all cube shaped, and sometimes connecting in unexpected ways. There are gravity shifts, spacial shifts and temporal shifts between rooms, and all of this is presented in visually intriguing ways. The effects are vivid enough, but still simple compared to what we're used to seeing. It's the characters and the fast script that engages the viewer here, though.

The philosophies which come out in this movie won't move any mountains, but they're not meant to. They are only the rambling thoughts of people trapped together, trying to make something work out. Everyone reacts differently, and the script has a proper amount of foreshadowing and ambiguity to make the ending fit with everything that came before.

I'm not the type to get lost in the idea of what the cube is and how it exists. The way the story is written here overcomes that, and the ending is just a necessary way of wrapping things up. There are a hundred ways this story could have been presented, but I was very entertained by the way it was handled. I like this better than the other two because of the characters and all they went through to reach the end.

This is the way Hollywood should learn to balance the suspense of a thriller and the character of a good drama. The chemistry between the two leads and their ability to convey the complexities of their relationship are a huge draw when watching this movie.

The girl is complex, and this first movie in the trilogy only gives a glimpse of her back story - a violent young woman, who at 24 years old is still saddled with a guardian who wants to oversee her money and all her activities. Even though she is the title character, the investigator/journalist who crosses paths with her is really the driving persona in the story. We follow him into a murder mystery, where her story is only a backdrop to her character and her motivation for helping the investigation.

The murder mystery itself is just as compelling as it begins to take the lead. While the structure of setting up such complex characters before getting into the main storyline is a little foreign to the American audience, it's necessary for a story with such characters and it's handled seamlessly here. The story never loses its drive, and its climax touching on issues of race dynamics, twisted psychologies and dysfunctional families, is worth every moment of the film's buildup.

And the second movie in the trilogy is even better!

"High School Hellcats" doesn't quite live up to the title, but it turns out that it's a pretty good movie, especially for its time. Coming from the American-International production team of Nicholson and Zarkoff, it surpasses the standards of most of their efforts. Where I expected lines to make me laugh out loud and a plot that exaggerated the idea of girl groups controlling each other through peer pressure, this film was actually plotted in a nice straightforward way, and lacking any sort of twist or turn, it wasn't entirely predictable either. The script served the story without reaching for shocks to sell itself, and the acting was far from exciting, but also conveyed the proper moods and expressions for the story.

It would be too much to say I liked the movie. It's just watchable. The only intrigue is the dated ideas in the story and setting, but other than that, it manages to succeed in all the basics of the craft of filmmaking. Maybe Nicholson and Zarkoff's best, in that respect, even though they have others that are more fun for being much worse.

I was pleasantly surprised by this film. From a simple premise as "lying doesn't exist" it develops into a thoughtful tale with a touch of satire. On the one hand it exposes early on the basic first impressions we all have of each other and of situations we find ourselves in. On the other, it touches on the importance of being honest about what we know and especially honest about what we don't know.

I could examine all the inconsistencies inherent to a concept like this. One would think that without the concept of duplicity, we should be far more advanced than we currently are. One would also think that without lying, there would be no imagination and therefore very few scientific discoveries and advances. The story requires that you don't think about that too much, just to enjoy the script as it moves along.

Gervais carries the film along as planned, in his quiet, self-effacing way. The humor won't have you rolling on the floor, but the frankness of the casual insights should make anyone snicker with self-awareness at the truth of it all.

This version of the story really isn't a version but a continuation with the same title. However, this continuation treats Wonderland in a totally different light, with elements of Carroll's works thrown together into a mythology of Wonderland. Depending on what one liked about the original story, a viewer would either enjoy the new perspective or be incredibly offended.

In the first place, two things are apparent: there are lots of special effects, and there is a lot of screen time for Johnny Depp. The effects are nice enough, in keeping with the level of quality of contemporary movies. It's better than average, although the color design seems drab. Depp doesn't display a good feel for the role, strangely enough. Maybe it's because we've seen too much of him and we can hear a bit of Jack Sparrow here, a trace of Willy Wonka there, but very little Chocolat anywhere. It's another Tim Burton movie for Depp.

The story takes the whimsy of the original and creates a mythology from it. In this way, it becomes another Hollywood effort to turn an older and respected story into a sword and sorcery epic. In this case, the epic doesn't have the juice, since it squeezed all the satire out of the original and used the superficial husk that was left. The familiar whimsical elements are treated too seriously and fail to be entertaining. The story drags on too long and begins to look just like any other special effects movie, complete with roaring monsters, last-minute escapes and a chorus of women singing some unrecognizable words at a climactic moment.

On a personal note, I can't fathom that the filmmakers didn't get the name of the beast - the Jabberwock. It's mentioned several times in the original poem, which they chopped up for no reason. The name of the poem in the original is clearly "Jabberwocky" but at no time is that considered to be the name of the beast itself, until this movie. As one of those poor young men who took the time to memorize the poem for his own amusement, I'm personally offended at the carelessness in weaving these components from the original work.

Overall, it's an unworthy contribution to the name of Wonderland. If you never liked Wonderland, you may like this more than I did.

This movie gets one thinking about the nature of love, about the hidden and unhidden elements of relationships. Through the main characters' on and off romance, the subtleties of the dynamic between man and woman is explored in its extremes.

A movie can't treat this as thoroughly as a well-written novel. It has to become its own thing and express in its own way, which this movie does brilliantly. Leslie Howard and Bette Davis gave some of their best performances in this movie, and truly gave us reason to feel for each of the characters and want the best for them.

Leslie's performance make me wondered why he's not mentioned more often as one of the greats of this era. Bette's work on this film underscores why she is mentioned so much as a screen legend. Just before watching this, I watched "Petrified Forest" with him and Bette Davis and it was equally impressive in a totally different way. Where that movie was tight and terse in its plot, this one was just as much so in its characters. It turns out to be a very nice exploration of what makes us fall in love and fall out.

This film is only good for a few laughs. The problem is that the laughable parts take so much effort to get to.

Telling anyone the plot wouldn't spoil anything. Family checks into a hotel that is actually a trap set by a Manos-worshipper to attract new wives.

Mostly, the charm of this movie is in its complete lack of both technique and style. It really looks like the same level of film making as a really bad silent movie. In fact, some of the scenes have absolutely no dialogue. Occasionally a clip of someone saying something is spliced into otherwise static scenes - either as an afterthought, or because of a compete inability to record spoken word.

There is no acting in this movie. There is only speaking lines.

To truly enjoy this movie on any level, you really have to see the Mystery Science Theater 3000 showing.

It's a difficult to task to bring a true story to film and do justice to it. It's even harder when the main character, around whom the entire film revolves, isn't around to help out. Even so, if the filmmakers keep in mind the character's actions and movement through the various phases of the narrative, the story can come out both coherent and true to the existing knowledge of the person's life.

In the case of "Into the Wild" the film was unfortunately made in such a way as to overpower notions of the life of Chris McCandless by excesses in the making of the film. The slow- motion scene of Chris almost falling into a river might make sense to someone who has read the book but it just hangs around in the middle of the movie. The hand-held motions and quick zooms during the self-detox scene tend to obscure what's going on more than to tell the story. All throughout, the mood music is to monotonous. I have an understanding of the use of leitmotif, but this isn't the case here. It's just the same music used throughout the nearly two and a half hours of this movie.

The performances are reasonably good, but the depictions of Chris's family back home are overwrought snippets that are emotionally detached for the viewer. I felt I was seeing outtakes of a drama workshop, rather than a professionally made film.

This film could be interesting. It's an interesting topic and even more poignant because it's essentially true. I can't complain that the movie took liberties, because it didn't. It's failure is that the film makers worked too hard to make things interesting and their efforts are only distracting.

It might be argued that any of the movies starring Anna May Wong has an intrinsic element of Asian sympathy, but at various points in this story I felt they were overdoing it. Even though the story is set in Singapore, for purposes of feasibility I suppose, Wong's character's name is China Lily. Conveniently enough, one of her old friends from China happens to wander through her part of town also. Singapore was just a little fishing village apparently. What underscores the initial emphasis on the "exotic" setting and characters is an early comment by the so-called "King of the River" as he orders in the restaurant - "American style hamburger. Forget the onions." It's all too heavy-handed.

Otherwise the story isn't too bad. She is looking for her father, who happens to be a General, known to most of the other characters and when they discover her relation, their attitudes and motivations change. Through her charm she makes a connection with the King of the River and this leads to a positive resolution, if an expected one for this era.

Some of the weakness of the film, as for most of the era, is its reliance on sets and stock footage. Also, the dance with the drums, which is stereotypically "native" in its primitive appearance, does nothing to enhance the idea that the cultures of Southeast Asia are civilized in any way.

This movie is worth watching if you're a hound for the 1930s style of movie-making, or if you like to see the changes in how various cultures are depicted in American cinema. Otherwise, not much to recommend.

I wasn't expecting a kid movie, and I didn't get one. Granted, this movie is kid-friendly, but it has enough substance in the story that it doesn't get weighed down with mind-altering attempts at comic relief. The story is enough without any inanities.

Hiccup is about as non-Viking as a Viking can be, and of course, his dad is the chief of the island, and the biggest, most Vikingest Viking that a Viking can be. He tries to use his skills to fit in and impress his dad, but his skills aren't physical. He's more of a thinker and a problem solver.

When he befriends one of the most legendary dragons, which no one else has even seen, he begins to see into the nature of the dragons and how to deal with them. It isn't easy to convince the Vikings of this, but the circumstances of the story eventually take care of that problem.

The "chemistry" between Hiccup and the dragon Toothless is amazing considering that this is animation. All the characters are well-designed to bring out the characters, but Toothless is an impressive feat in his movements and his ability to convey emotions through expressions and body language throughout the movie.

The action in this movie is pretty eye-popping, but some of the more understated scenes are pretty striking in their own ways, such as the fight in the clouds when the Vikings are simply observing flashes of light. For a warrior people who venerate Thor and Odin, such a scene must have been dramatic in a different way.

Comic relief is here in the form of some of Hiccup's peers, and while they may have had more character in the book, they seem to be kind of sporadic in their scenes here. As a compliment, at last they aren't overused meddling goofups filling in for plot points with contrivances, as you might see in lesser movies. They definitely have character, even if it doesn't have a chance to show. The story stays focused and gets where it needs to be by the end.

Overall, all the elements in this movie make it worth seeing. I'd even be up for a second viewing.

I'm not such a deadheaded movie watcher that I have to watch films three times to "get" them, so I can't explain why I would watch "The Big Sleep" three times and still not "get" it. I can follow the plot easily enough, although it seems like a drudgery. I have no problem with the characters as they're written, and the actions they take throughout. I think the reason I get so bored with this movie has to do with the main creative talents in it.

Otherwise, I have kind things to say about Howard Hawks ("Scarface," "Rio Bravo," "Bringing up Baby") as well as Humphrey Bogart ("Casablanca," "The African Queen") and Lauren Bacall (can't remember what I've seen her in, and as good looking as she is, that probably means I've never seen another of her movies, so maybe I'm stretching it to say I have kind things to say), but in this movie, the overly gentle pacing and lack of any sort of score to stir my cinemaphiliac soul I blame on the director, and the apathy I feel for Philip Marlowe and Vivian Rutledge as they wander through this bitter drama I blame on Humphrey and Lauren. They deliver their lines well enough, but it seems even they don't have any sympathy for the characters they're supposed to play.

It's mildly pleasant to watch, but it's so far away from the better film noir I've seen (nothing touches "Double Indemnity") and not even the best Marlowe ever filmed (Elliott Gould in Robert Altman's "The Long Goodbye") that I can't credit it with being an interesting film or a very watchable movie. Three times was enough to still not "get" whatever is so great about this movie. I will be very desperate to ever give it a fourth watching.