Reviews

This is a good show in that the acting is good and the period is interesting. But.....

There are flaws that seem to come up in these shows depicting the old west. First, granted that it was before my time so I can't say for certain, I really don't think people swore as much as this show makes it seem, and especially not around ladies. Secondly, families had a father and a mother, and they had defined jobs and roles. Wives were likely not consulted (I'm not saying this is good) on family business matters. They raised the children, prepared meals, ran the household, etc, and likely girls were raised to do the same. Plus, why do things seem so well lit when there is only moonlight (including tracking a horse through grass)? Seems Nike nit-picking, I know, but these little things are important to me.....

OK, is it just me, or are other fans of Mad Men starting to get a little worried? With two episodes left (or is it one? yikes!) after may 3,2015's Lost Horizon, the seem to be a lot of loose ends to tie, with not enough time to do so... Let me start with Mr. Dick Whitman. The importance of Don Draper's alter ego to the story line has been forgotten over the past few seasons, but surely there has to be some connection in the end?? Next, although Don Draper is a complicated character, and seems to be handed a lot of bad luck, he really is a jerk..... Accustomed to getting whatever he wants. I feel that he has to do some good to buy himself some good karma and redeem himself. The second most complicated character is Peggy. On one hand she is a strong-willed woman, so much that intimidates men. However, she is also vulnerable and still looks to Joan to help he through. The final has to include a definite end point for her too.... Will she land a partnership somewhere? Will there be a reconnection with her young child? Other things too - will Pete get back with Trudi, etc......

This movie is truly a masterpiece. It is nearly flawless, and was remarkably realistic. No need for mob stereotypes ..... Just a conservative portrayal of a family with deep roots. Remarkable, and a treat to watch over again. It's too bad Brando was a bit of a flake, because he is probably the best actor that ever lived. Every character is complex, but I think my favourite must be Sonny. A hot headed son who is expected to take the reigns of the family one day, in spite of older brother Fredo. I was a kid when it came out but I would love to see it on the big screen. I also find the ages of the actors interesting... Pacino and Caan were very close in age despite Caan as being portrayed as years older. Duvall is actually considerably older than those two. And Abe Vagota is the oldest living cast member.

We'll, to put this as simply as possible - this is my favourite movie of all time. This movie is a treat to watch every single time. It is flawless, really, and I really wonder what it would have been like to experience it when it was released in theatres. I recently watched the documentary on the making of the movie and I wasn't surprised to see the efforts that Stanley Kubrick would show to perfect it. The writing, the camera-work, and the well- placed comedy are excellent, but the best really is the cast, led by Peter Sellers, Sterling Hayden, and George C. Scott. I can't imagine anyone else playing their roles any better. Anyway, I honestly can't imagine anyone really disliking this movie,... And if they do, man are we different from each other. Another one of Kubrick's best by the way ......The Shining.

I am a self-declared Kubrick nut. I watch Dr. Strangelove and The Shining and his others over and over just hoping to see something new that will amaze me about his talent. And I am always amazed. But The Killing just doesn't match up to his others. It doesn't have the unique Kubrick camera positioning, the attention to every detail, and even the exact music that will set the mood he wants. Truthfully, this movie could be directed by any other person. And based on that I give it an average mark. But little things like the weight of the money Johny has in the duffle bag. Kubrick would know that 2 million dollars in $20 notes would weigh around 200 pounds and the bag could not be tossed around as easily as it was.... Or the fact that the money was stuffed in to the bag in neat packets, but was all loose when it went into the suitcase.....or what about the obviously fake bird in the cage just before Sherry gets killed? Anyway, in 1956 film tape was expensive but this one will not go down as one of Stanley's best.

A good movie, but not as good as Cormac McCarthy's book. That is one of my favourite novels ever. I think the movie misses some subtle things that I picked up on in the book. For example, the father demonstrates patience at nearly all times with the boy and his never-ending questions. He does not come across that way in the movie. Plus, the book has a spiritual theme and several references to the boy being a messenger of God ("I am the one"). Nevertheless, the movie follows the book reasonably we'll, and I'm sure McCarthy had final say on the screenplay. I've read the book twice, and I've seen the movie once, but my memories of the story seem to relate to the movie, and I wish they didn't. Anyway, I recommend watching the movie, but I recommend reading the book even more. It is actually an easy read but full of hidden messages and seems to be a realistic view of an apocalyptic world.