Change Your Image
cardinalcall
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Ship of Fools (1965)
What makes this film great is its historical context and the fine acting of the two stars
What makes this film great is its historical context and the subtle acting of the two stars: Ockar Werner and Simone Signoret.
You see Nazi Germany before the war, and the mindset of the German people. What's haunting is the similarity to the mindset today when fascism is now predominant in America and Europe now, with citizens oblivious to it.
Every citizen of the United States should view this movie. History repeats itself. Mussolini had defined fascism as the merger of corporatism and the government. So it was true in Nazi Germany, and so it is true today with huge corporations owning politicians and the media.
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Interesting beginning, which builds up nicely, but then bombs miserably
This contains a spoiler. So don't read if you haven't yet seen the movie!
The movie has a riveting beginning. And the movie bills up suspense nicely as it proceeds, creating suspense and luring you into its plot.
But the climax fails miserably: it's too fantastic and unbelievable, including its portrayal of Hitler. The viewer cannot suspend disbelief.
I respect liberties taken with history, even with very sensitive moments in history, but to create an ending as such in the movie completely denying the events that occurred in time reduces the movie to an insulting cartoon: it mocks the intelligence of the viewer.
Some actors and actresses, though, gave great performances: notably Diane Kruger, who may be the most seductive and feminine woman in the world, and Christolph Waltz. Brad Pitt, on the other hand, is no Warren Oates, and was not believable at all right from the very beginning of his entrance in the movie.
"Desperado" worked for me: it was in part a spoof and largely entertaining. But this did not, partly because of its subject matter: too fanciful, unreal, and thereby insulting the viewer.
Sadly this could have been a great film. I read that the author had put the script aside for years before completing it. Perhaps that explains the disconnected ending and the film's failure.
The portrayal of Hitler truly missed its mark. It was not even humorous in order to make it palatable to the viewer. "Fractured Fairy Tales" portrayed the course of human events more realistically than this movie.
My final grade? This movie could have been an A+; I give it an F-.
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
Nothing redeeming about this film
There is nothing I can say positive about this film. It certainly has not stood the test of time.
Who can emphasize with any of the characters in this film? Kate Hepburn is not convincing as the spoiled rich girl who miraculously becomes human with imperfections. Why would a bitch goddess all of a sudden become human after a drunken stupor, after years of being a spoiled brat?
And Cary Grant should have passed on his role as Dexter. He appears wooden and superfluous. Jimmy Stewart should not have received an Oscar for his role either. Why would an intelligent writer suddenly fall in love with such a bitch if he is oh, so bright as a writer?
Nah, this film may have appealed to the rich and those enamored with the American aristocracy, but today it leaves one with the feeling of wanting to vomit.
The only scene that comes off real is when Grant pushes Kate down on the ground. After that scene, change channels because the rest is trite and trash.
My only question is who are the morons who rated this film highly?
Stage Beauty (2004)
This could have been a great movie: but it fails miserably.
If you are looking for another movie like "Shakespeare in Love", forget it: it's not here.
True, there was a Charles II, Nell Gwynn, and Ned Kynaston; however, the viewer is left with characters who have little, if any, similarity to the historical persons. The Nell Gwynn as depicted in this film would never have been a favorite of the London playhouses nor Charles II. And the Ned Kynaston as he appears in Stage Beauty would have been performing in Bedlam rather than on Vere Street. Ned was not a basket case; rather, an accomplished actor.
And Othello was not the subject that enthralled audiences of the Restoration era. Where is Wycherly's "Country Wife", or Etherege's "Love in a Tub"? The Restoration restored fun and sin, not tragedy, the stuff of Puritans and Pilgrims. The film fails to capture the spirit of the era: the joy of life on earth rather than in the after life.
This film not only fails in historical accuracy. It also fails in creating believable characters. No, Virginia, gay men cannot be made heterosexual. That is a fantasy of gay men and the women who love them. Bisexual is a term used by those who are in a state of denial. This is the biggest failure of the film: the viewer cannot suspend disbelief.
And at times I detected a bit of preachiness about woman's rights, feminism, etc, that I half expected to see Gloria Steinem appear on stage as Iago. Yeah, we know women can act: haven't we all been married and divorced? If you, too, are fed up hearing about gay and woman rights all the time, send your wife to the movie with her girl or gay friend, and stay home. Watching the New York Giants lose is less painful than watching this drivel.
Other than perhaps Scotty Bowers, I am really at a loss as to who loved this film. The whole world may be a stage except for this film.
Pass on this one unless you, too, are in a state of denial.
The Cotton Club (1984)
Great performances; great cast; great music; great era....
Although the script is not the best that could have been written, who cares when you have so many talented dancers, actors, actresses, and performers in a film with lavish costumes and sets. The movie transports the viewer back in time to the Prohibition Era, when gangsters ruled, booze flowed, musicians jammed, and dancers tapped.
Don't try to follow the plot: it's not worth the bother. There is something for everyone in this movie: music, dance, violence... even titillating lingerie and costumes for those with fetishes.
My favorite scene is that in the Hoofer Club. Filming those old timers dancing was a glorious tribute to their talent, and well worth preserving for future generations. Needless to say, the dance sequences with the Hines brothers were excellent.
Try to get past the limitations of the script and enjoy the ambiance of the Jazz Era, gone long ago, leaving us now only with rappers--whom I cannot even understand, thank goodness, and who have no talent in comparison to those performing in this film--and country singers, who are anything but country folk.
The Cheap Detective (1978)
Awful: I could have written a funnier screenplay.
Don't bother watching this movie: it's awful. I could have written a funnier screenplay than Neil Simon. Booo. My only regret is that the playwright was not the victim in this detective story.
Sid Caesar was not funny; Peter Falk was not funny; Madeline Kahn was not funny; Louise Fletcher was not funny; the who-don-it is the playwright...he murdered this script! Booo.
Although I thought "The Odd Couple" and "Max Dugan Returns" were great screenplays written by Simon, I think he wrote a number of not-too-clever and not-too-funny plays despite the casting of some notable actors and actresses.
My only puzzlement is: why did these big name actors and actresses agree to do this script? Was it to pay their income taxes? Aren't actors and actresses supposed to have some standards for the quality of the scripts and the materials?
As Alfred, the Macy janitor in "Miracle on 34th Street" said: 'Yeah, there's a lot of bad 'isms' floatin' around this world, but one of the worst is commercialism. Make a buck, make a buck. Even in Brooklyn it's the same ... just make a buck, make a buck.'
Well, Alfred, even in Hollywood it appears to be the same - don't care what cinema and art stands for, just make a buck, make a buck.
Citizen Kane (1941)
Fails to connect on the most important level: emotionally
Despite all the hype and raving reviews from film critics like Pauline Kael, I found "Citizen Kane" to be too contrived, stilted, unreal, as if I were reading a classic comic book. The gimmicks with lighting and camera angles added to this comic-book presentation of the picture as well.
The film fails emotionally. One does not feel for the central character or any of the characters, in fact. The closest it comes to the portrayal of a human connection is when Kane fires his college chum from one of his newspapers. And there it ends. Even when Kane dies, we cannot feel anything for this man. And the biggest gimmick of all contrived by Wells was the "rosebud" mystery. According to Gore Vidal, Hearst referred to Davies most private part with this term. How can the viewer connect emotionally to this gimmick, more appropriate for a hoochie-coochie carnival act than a work of art.
Too stylized, too detached, too contrived, too gimmicky leaves the viewer unable to suspend disbelief and experience the reality of the story. Welles played with his audience, as he did in "War of the Worlds", like a smart-alecky kid. Consequently, reviews by critics extolling this film as the greatest film of all time have left me doubting their artistic credentials.
Trust me, you won't be re-watching this film over and over; however, it is worth a first viewing.
Harriet Craig (1950)
Joan Crawford, Mildred Pierce, Daisy Kenyon, and now Harriet Craig...(yawn)
Same character, different men: Joan Crawford playing musical chairs in movies. It's deja vu all over again with Joan Crawford as Mildred Pierce, Daisy Kenyon, and now Harriet Craig: in other words, it's Joan Crawford playing Joan Crawford, better known as "Mommie Dearest".
The above three movies were made between 1945 and 1950. Apparently Joan's Oscar in Mildred Pierce spawned Daisy Kenyon and Harriet Craig. Let's not forget that Queen Bee comes later, another "Mommie Dearest" persona.
Unless you are a submissive titillated by a Dominatrix whipping people--particularly men--into mush, change the channel and watch something more human and less beastly.