Reviews

If you can only see one version of this incredible musical, see Robert Preston in his star-making turn as Professor Harold Hill. Broderick couldn't sell me one trombone, let alone 76. The rest of the cast is just fine and the numbers are staged well, but I just feel the lead has been miscast in order to use a "name."

I first saw Annie at the Alvin in 1978. I fell in love. I was sorely disappointed by the John Huston film, it deviated to much from the characters in Annie. Of course, the 2014 version betrayed the source by changing the songs to fit the updated setting. This one, while not perfect, got it the best yet. I'm anticipating the Annie: Live coming up in 2021 to be good, we'll see if it measures up to this.

I absolutely enjoyed this movie, which stays true to Stewarts disdain for the tribalism of political parties. It also is a throwback to the traditional screwball comedies of the 30's with characters who hate each other so much, you know they're in love. This got a critical slogging, probably because Stewart didn't coddle the reviewers' precious beliefs, or go where they expected the story to go. Too bad. As I said it's charming and resolved in a way that I found incredibly satisfying. Unfortunately, the box office wasn't there and Stewart's future as a filmmaker is definitely not guaranteed.

This is one twisted series. The subject matter is definitely taboo, but it's also incredibly funny. The jokes are set up skillfully leading the viewer to expect a certain payoff. However that payoff is continually subverted into something completely unexpected yet entirely in character. Repeat viewings continue to be rewarding.

First off, I like Sia and her music. The musical numbers in this film, had they been released as a music video series without the tone deaf connecting story, would have been just fine. The attempt to link the songs is what fails. Miss Ziegler is an attractive young woman, but not the actress to pull off what turns out to be her version of Simple Jack. The world created is condescending to anyone with mental disabilities.

I guess I understand why, this was a money grab under the guise of "inclusivity." The story doesn't take too many liberties, the cast is willing and eager. But what happened to the music? I saw Annie in 1978 with the lovely Andrea McArdle and was blown away. John Huston's movie was a misstep in trying to "open up" a stage play. The Disney TV-Movie was charming. This was beyond a mis-step and is a plummet down a chasm of idiocy. This musical has great songs that will make it a great musical for years to come. The attempt at updating the songs dooms this film to a dismal failure.

I've seen some bad reviews of this and I really don't think they were written by true Nic Cage fans. Yes, his line delivery can be eccentric at times. But it's Cage's presence that makes a movie. That scene in Mandy where he wordlessly stares down a would-be killer, or the entirety of this movie. I think I would have paid to see this in the theater had it not popped up on Hulu. He is fully present for this role from start to finish and, IMO, shows why his Oscar was well deserved. The story has been said to be a re-hash or a video game, but I thought it to be a re-hash of the Banana Splits movie. Anyhow, it's a big thumbs up from me, but it will definitely not be for every taste.

I had to watch this in anticipation of yet another remake of this sturdy hollywood story. I'm a huge March fan, so the original is probably my favorite. I enjoyed the Garland/Mason musical, but found it a bit lengthy. This one I had very mixed emotions about. It seems the two leads are acting in very different movies. Kristofferson is in a serious dramatic movie, whereas Streisand seems to be in a stage farce, mugging for the camera and projecting her emotions to the 2nd balcony. I won't spoil the movie, but there's a key plot point that is changed from the previous 2 versions to this one that renders the ending less impactful for me.

Adam knows his stuff and he generally unearths some high quality recordings of great shows. I've found some new favorites because he doesn't just stick with the famous radio detectives, but unearths a lot of more obscure shows that are out there.

I first saw this on television as a youngster of about 10 years old. That would put it around 1973. I have since re-watched it at least 20 times and have purchased the Criterion disc and continue to find new elements that rock my world. I've heard complaints from friends that it's so obvious who Orson Welles will play, and also that the music doesn't fit the mood of the movie. Those complaints have not curtailed my enjoyment one iota.

To me, this has been always about as close to perfect as a single film can come. It isn't bloated with unnecessary character development. The actors have depth and we get their stories with an economy of words. It has humor, suspense, great music, intriguing camera-work, stellar dialogue and it's all in a package that isn't the overblown 3 hour epic that gets spit out by Hollywood these days.

I hope it is never remade.

Welles continues to amaze me. I've made an effort to track down some of his less available movies, such as F For Fake, and this one. This is closer in style to the Magnificent Ambersons than anything else I've seen. Welles seems to have a love for the people of this world he creates and frames them in vibrant colors with golden lighting. The pace, unlike the majority of his works, is slow and deliberate without the trademarked quick editing. The story, too, is not rushed and the ironic twists are revealed with a sense of sadness, no one's "comeuppance" seemed justified but rather a tragic outcome of each character's personal flaws. I really recommend this for fans of the master. I think many will find this odd and I imagine that many younger viewers (the ones who find black & white dull or Hitchcock overrated) will find this unwatchable.

Many people adore this movie. A friend of mine recommended this to me and I trusted his judgment. I probably should say that, although I found it well made, I was no great fan of Dangerous Liaisons either. I found Cruel Intentions very poorly written and badly overacted. Attempts at tenderness and intimacy come across as heavy handed and the attempts at eroticism are laughable. Sarah Michelle Gellar has a huge following who find her irresistible. I am not one of those. Perhaps this is one of those movies, like Showgirls, that can be really funny when re-watched, but my initial viewing was sheer embarrassment for all involved in making this steaming mess of a movie.

This is a pleasant piece of Allen whimsy, not the dazzling triumph that some reviewers are talking about. It has little of the true emotional heft that Matchpoint or Crimes & Misdemeanors had due partly to the fact that it has a narrator distancing us from the characters whenever it threatens to get too close.

Performances are good all around, but the characters, with the exception of Allen's "Spanish" actors, are uninteresting, completely self-absorbed and seem to end up unchanged at their core.

To add insult I viewed it at our local multiplex. They are no longer able to adequately handle movies sent to them on 35mm (they only know digital) so consequently there were issues in starting the movie, and the masking was appalling. Shame on Carmike Cinemas. Needless to say I got a free movie out of it.

Many times the movie adaptations of the stage tend to seem almost desperate in attempts to break free from the restrictions imposed on the original productions by live theater. Cinema is truly a different art form, as the early silent greats discovered when trying to film the stage hits of their day. Burton does a marvelous job of opening up the stage production and making it truly a movie.

I have to admit, being a huge fan of the stage show, every edit & change in the music was jarring. However in looking back the only part that I thought wasn't an appropriate edit was in the song "God that's good." Sweeney, true to any Tim Burton character (Pee Wee, Edward Scissorhands, Batman), is fascinated with gadgetry in this movie, eliminating the need for a new chair to be delivered and eliminating "is that a chair fit for a king?" song. The patrons of Mrs. Lovett's pie shop no longer smack their lips singing "God that's good." I did find the elimination of the Greek chorus from the story appropriate for the movie. A movie can condense story exposition quickly in a few images, making the chorus redundant. This makes the story zing along with almost as much speed as the frenetic camera movement from the docks to Fleet street. The violence is much more graphic, but suitable for the macabre comedy it is intended to be.

As far as performances, I found Depp to be an astonishingly good singer and effective Sweeney. Rickman is superb, as always. Cohen was a surprise as Pirelli, singing well and mining the comedy deftly without being over the top. The young lad playing Toby was a revelation and one can only hope he is cast in a remake of Oliver! Carter, on the other hand left a lot to be desired. She was adequate, but no more than that. If anything the movie suffers due to the lack of a talent comparable to Lansbury from the stage version.

Overall the movie satisfied me greatly. I had felt that many of Burton's latest efforts were sub par. Sweeney Todd reaffirms my belief in his talent as a top notch filmmaker.

I remember this as a kid, hitting upon it completely by accident and watching it all the way through. I was an avid Holmes reader at the time and anything of that ilk caught my eye. I only remember it through the haze of the past, however I remember enjoying thoroughly and, like other reviewers, hoping for the series which never materialized. I would like to see it again to see if it was actually good or just some nonsense that appealed to me at the time. Larry Hagman is always very funny, I've never thought him good in dramas, and I found the romantic chemistry between Holmes and Watson to be good. I would love to see it again.

There's just something about Orson Welles behind a camera (as well as in front). I saw this movie years ago on a public television station. The print was pathetic, however you could still pick out the extreme angles, deep focus, layered soundtrack and quirky characters that are the Wellesian touch.

I recently purchased the Criterion set and was absolutely delighted. The back story of just about any Welles movie is generally at least as exciting as the movie itself, and this one is a doozy.

I was watching one of the versions with my wife last year and she asked what year it was made. I think that Welles was perpetually about 50 years ahead of the curve. This is why his movies have a tremendous audience and respect now.

I would probably have given this film higher marks if Kirby Dick were as skilled an essayist as he was a filmmaker. Technically the film flows well and the graphics are well produced, sound, music, etc. all top notch. I found the investigation scenes fairly exciting in the light hearted way they were presented.

Where the filmmaker fails is in establishing a compelling argument. He does bring in some question about the quality of the ratings in light of other films. However, he tries to make a point about sex being judged harsher than violence, then produces paperwork from the garbage of the ratings board proving the opposite. He interviews a filmmaker who's upset about an "R" rating his film received, yet as a parent I would absolutely not wish to have my child view this unaccompanied (nor any of the other war atrocities he cites).

I also feel it is a slight invasion of privacy to out people on the ratings board and publish personal information of this nature. I realize the argument is for "transparency," and the filmmaker feels that full disclosure is necessary. However, this outing only makes sense if the filmmaker were also willing to make the same disclosures about himself and EVERYONE ELSE WITH A VESTED INTEREST IN HIS MOVIE. Let's be transparent if someone is trying to make a statement.

One main area upon which I agree is criteria for ratings. With the old "Hays Code" there were certain items that weren't allowed. I think if filmmakers were provided with a list of what will guarantee an "R" or "NC-17" than that would go a long way to solving the problem. I also agree with Kevin Smith that the MPAA is way to soft on violence towards women.

Again, another nice try to make several points. Not all of them stuck. Next time I would recommend making only the points that do. I think Michael Moore's movies would benefit from that approach as well.

I recently re-watched this and am still amazed at how exciting, entertaining and fast-paced this movie is. Leonard Maltin's guide prefers the follow Adventures of Sherlock Holmes because of Rathbone's absence for much of the Hound's middle section. I, however, find that it only adds to the overall suspense of the picture.

Many people have downplayed the Rathbone/Bruce pairing primarily because of Bruce's bumbling and mumbling. In this first outing that is down to a minimum. His Watson, while maybe not the ladies man in Doyle's stories, is still a competent medical man, athletic if stocky and the perfect counterpoint to Rathbone's Holmes.

I did enjoy the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes episodes, but still prefer Rathbone and Bruce because of the remarkable chemistry between the two. I can see these people and believe they actually shared rooms together and liked each other enough to keep that arrangement for many years.

Supporting characters in Hound are noteworthy as well. Lionel Atwill is awesome as the mysterious Dr. Mortimer, and John Carradine is perfection as always.

Highly recommend watching this on a rainy evening. Make it a double feature with Son of Frankenstein for a Rathbone festival.

This was a wonderful jaunt down memory lane for both my wife and myself. We used to hit our drive-in movie theater for such fare as Last House on the Left/Don't Look In The Basement/The House By the Lake triple feature, with all the bad previews. I also remember the Eyeball/Suspiria double feature. This conjured many of the same feelings watching this slice of exploitation Americana.

I truly enjoyed Rodriguez's feature the most. It was true to the logic, gore level and ridiculous excess of my memory.I have to say I was a little disappointed by Quentin Tarentino abandoning the style about midway through his segment. The previews were a stitch. I especially liked the final entreaty in Don't.

If you've never had the joy of this type of movie-going experience, you may still enjoy this double feature. If you have I guarantee you'll love it!

Breakfast at Tiffany's is an iconic film, I mean it even has a song written about the movie. Well, I must say that Key Largo was a better song and a better movie. Although I was interested in the characters, and my love for Mickey Rooney allowed me to look past his cartoon stereotype of the Japanese-American, I couldn't help but feel a certain amount of revulsion and pity for these people. This was Days of Wine and Roses without the truth. Paul and Holly are alcoholic prostitutes (this is no spoiler as it's revealed very early in the movie). It's very sad that they have to cling to one another, but their only other option is to keep performing sexual favors (although Holly's are only hinted at) for their paying customers. Holly has gone through several relationships and is very willing to marry for money. Paul would rather sleep with Patricia Neal than sit down and write (although, I probably would too). Neither one has an honest moral and find the act of petty theft to be charming and entertaining. Basically they are hooligans. If they weren't so darned attractive (and if Moon River wasn't playing in the background) this would be a precursor to a movie like Barfly.

I do have to admit I'm glad I finally saw the movie, rather than wondering what all the talk was about. And I'm glad to have seen Fred Flintstone himself in the role of Sally Tomato (I'm going to have to look him up and see what else he's lent his face to). However I found this breakfast lovely to look at, but it left a gritty taste in my mouth.

I guess I was expecting more atmosphere after the Karloff Universal movies and was a little disappointed with the MGM handling of this. Universal has created a world of misty landscapes, expressionistic castles and long shadows for their monster series. It's a world I welcome every time and goes a long way to making what might be a mediocre performance or lackluster story more exciting. MGM has never really had that touch. Probably the closest they've come was with Fredric March's Mr. Hyde, but that was most likely due to that movie's director. Fu Manchu lives in palatial digs, no ceilings, all brightly lit. Karloff as always is a joy to watch, and Myrna Loy is as sexy as ever. But, as I said, without the mists, castles and shadows the mystery disappears. Also, one thing the books had always done well is to end with a last act by Fu Manchu that let the reader and Sir Dennis know that he was still out there stirring up menace.

This isn't a great movie, but probably the single most faithful screen adaptation of Bram Stoker's great story I've ever seen. It doesn't embellish or introduce a whole bunch of characters. It keeps the idea of Dracula being in an old man when we first meet him in Romania and getting younger as he drinks blood. I remember seeing it not too long after I had finished reading the book (the excellent annotated Dracula by Leonard Wolf (no relation)) and was hooked from start to finish. This is kind of an art house Dracula, faithful to story and spirit, short on special effect and expensive lighting. Kind of like Passolini's Gospel According to Matthew.

I read about this movie long before I ever saw it. That might explain my love for it, since I did have some idea of the themes and interpretation of Blow-Up long before I ever saw it. It's one of the few "art" movies I've ever seen that has engaged me on so many levels. The story, in and of itself, is classic having been remade (with changes) twice since as "Blow Out" and "The Conversation." The music, from the Herbie Hancock jazz soundtrack to the Yardbirds imitating The Who can stand on its own. The picture of London in the swinging 60's has enough sterile disconnection from emotion to be believable. The use of color not only fits within the framework of the story, but is downright beautiful. The philosophical premise of questioning perception is incredible. Throughout the 60's and 70's it was possible to make an intelligent movie that also had an engaging story. Antonioni's story of the photographer who might have witnessed a murder has tension and intrigue, but also manages to leave me, even after repeated viewings, with me in the same quandary as David Hemming's character. And also I'm left with that sense of awe that I get whenever viewing a well crafted work of a true artist.