Avaliações de HotToastyRag

Part of Better Late Than Never is very cute. Released the same year as Terms of Endearment, Yentl, The Right Stuff, and Scarface, it's nice to be able to watch a fun, family comedy. Kimberley Partridge plays a young heiress and the mark of two conmen out to pretend they're her long-lost grandfather and therefore entitled to all her money. David Niven and Art Carney are the two old farts, both down on their luck, and bickering all the way. Kimberley is a mischievous little imp who likes practical jokes and getting her own way no matter the cost. She has a female cat named Albert, and when asked why she chose the name, she replies, "Because she doesn't like when I call her George." Maggie Smith, Kimberley's tough, sassy governess, is adorable. She keeps both potential grandpas on their toes and adds some "family friendly" sex appeal to keep the grown-ups happy. When The Niv invites her to accompany him to a topless beach, she declines. "If you can't lick them, don't join them," she smirks.

However, there is a very large elephant in the room, and Better Late Than Never isn't enjoyable. Our Beloved Niv was ill during filming, and it's very sad to see him looking so frail. I considered not watching the film, but because I love him so much, I decided to support him. If he had to suffer through filming it and exposing himself in his condition to his public, the least I could do was watch the end result.

You might be excited to watch A Tale of Africa, James Stewart's last theatrical film - but hold your horses. Jimmy's hardly in the movie. Either he just wanted a free trip to Kenya, or he was doing a favor for a friend. He plays "Old Man" and very happily takes a backseat to the scenery and the animals. Personally, I wasn't happy to see James Stewart billed as "Old Man", but I guess everyone ages.

If you're looking for a travelogue, you can rent this movie. You don't have to, though. You can also watch Born Free, Roar, or any number of actual documentaries. This one is practically a documentary, with an extremely thin plot and very little footage of humans. Just know what the movie is, and then you can decide for yourself if you want to watch it.

Michael Caine stars in Surrender as a successful novelist with bad luck with women. He's been divorced and taken to the cleaners too many times, and he vows he'll never get involved again. Obviously, he does, but why does he weaken if he's so adamant? Because he's literally held at gunpoint and tied to a naked woman. The film has a bit of a bizarre sense of humor, but once you get on its wavelength, it's very funny. Obviously, that situation would never happen. But it would take something so absurd to get Michael to forget his self-imposed female ban.

Sally Field (the naked lady) has her own absurd background: she always picks the wrong guys, and her current boyfriend, Steve Guttenberg, has been kidnapped in South America. She works at a "mass landscape painting factory", which is actually really interesting. But, keep in mind, it's a bit wacky. Sally vacillates between being strong and being a total pushover, but you've got to just roll with her. Overall, it's a cute movie; and every once in a while, something will make you laugh so hard, you'll need to press pause and clutch your belly.

I'll leave you with this: Michael believes he's found "The One" - again. He balks against making Sally sign a prenuptial agreement, but his lawyer and friend Peter Boyle insists. Michael maintains they're unromantic. "So are rubbers, but they work," Peter fires back. Crude? Don't watch this movie. Hilarious? Buy a copy.

Is The Hours the stupidest disturbing movie ever made? Probably not. Is it the most self-satisfied, smug movie ever made? Possibly. Do I wish I could have two hours of my life back? Certainly. Nicole Kidman won her highly-coveted Best Actress Oscar for playing Virginia Woolf, even though she shared pretty equal screen time with the other two leading ladies in the film, Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore. She could have easily been put in the Supporting category, but she probably wouldn't have stood for it. Since she wasn't even the lead, and she was up against two career-best performances from Renée Zellweger and Julianne Moore (in a different film), one might beg the question as to why she won the golden statuette. We all know why she won, but only her presenter Denzel Washington was brave enough to say it: "By a nose..." Nicole Kidman put on an ugly, large prosthetic nose. She wore an ugly, mousy brown wig. She looked ugly. It's as simple as that. The year before, she was all dolled up and corseted up in Moulin Rouge!, and Academy members were stupid enough to get bowled over by her "transformation" and translate that into talent. Nicole is capable of giving a solid dramatic performance. But you'll have to watch The Others or Rabbit Hole to see one. The Hours is not only not her finest hour (pun intended), but it's not even her movie.

Three unhappy women are showcased in three different decades. They all live idle, privileged lives and have no cause to be unhappy. Julianne Moore is married to a wonderful man who adores her, John C. Reilly. They have a sweet little boy and live in the suburbs. She has financial security, love, purpose, and responsibility. Yet, she has a meltdown in the bathroom at the thought of having to go to bed with her husband on his birthday. Meryl Streep is depressed because her friend and former lover, Ed Harris, is dying of AIDS. By the way, they're both gay. Meryl is successful and admired (by herself, too), but she believes her life is terrible. And we all know Virginia Woolf was crazy for no reason, and if she didn't have the luxury of indulging her mental illness in her idleness, she might have been able to get her act together.

Unless you like movies where every character is on the brink of suicide, unless your favorite film is Magnolia, or unless you think Nicole Kidman can literally do no wrong, you probably won't like this movie. You can save your time, or you can give a long, resentful groan when the end credits roll.

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to adult content, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Given that this admittedly feminist-slanted remake of The Beguiled was helmed by Sofia Coppola, I was shocked that it wasn't as gruesome in its famous scene as the 1971 original. In fact, the famous scene wasn't included at all! There was a build up, then the timeline cut to the aftermath. If you don't know what I'm talking about, watch the original version first. You might be surprised to find it's better than the remake, since movies in the 1970s are notoriously bad, but it is. Mostly, it's the script; but secondarily, it's the casting.

All the changes from the original to the remake's story were lousy. It's as if Ms. Coppola felt she had to distinguish herself but didn't know how, so instead of just giving up the ghost and making a different film, she made needless changes that took the guts and motivation out of the plot. I watched them back-to-back, and I was severely disappointed. As for the casting, while I understand Ms. Coppola and Kirsten Dunst had loyalty towards one another, dating back to The Virgin Suicides, Kirsten was completely miscast as a dowdy old maid. In the original, Elizabeth Hartman was gawky, awkward, and totally believable as thinking Clint Eastwood was her last chance. There was nothing wrong with Kirsten, and no feasible reason why she couldn't and wouldn't get a man once the war was over. Nicole Kidman also had no motivation. Geraldine Page, her predecessor, was given a backstory of having an incestual relationship with her brother, which not only explained her insanity but also her thirst for revenge, as well as her protective nature over her pupils. Nicole had no backstory whatsoever. We knew nothing about her, so nothing that came out of her mouth made sense. She was just Nicole Kidman.

And what happened to the accents? Nicole is very good at accents, but hers was uneven at best. Kirsten's was nonexistent, and Colin Farrell spoke in his native Irish brogue. He played a Yankee soldier! Obviously, the scene where he got caught by the Rebs and had to con his way out of it couldn't be included in this remake; and that was a very good scene from the original. Instead of that scene, or the famous scene, Ms. Coppola included a lengthy, ridiculous sponge bath between Nicole and an unconscious Colin. He had a wounded leg, so naturally, the filth she needed to wash was on his arms and chest, right? Sorry, ladies, but if a Yankee soldier had been shot and stumbled around in the woods for days, he wouldn't need a light massage. He would reek. His leg might be infected. He probably would have soiled himself. It would not be such an erotic situation that you would need to splash cold water on your face, as Nicole did.

Obviously, I recommend the original. This one is just a waste of time.

While some might think The Beguiled is a pointless story, I beg to differ. It's actually extremely appealing for male and female audiences alike: the men get to see a story about one fellow in a house full of women who are all as anxious to be seduced as he is to seduce them. There is nudity and sex, far more than realistic for the 1860s time period. The women get to see a handsome guy crippled and bedridden, while a house of women get to nurse and nurture him, then get seduced, then get revenge.

This wacky period drama held a perfect role for Clint Eastwood, who obviously took lessons at the Henry Fonda School of Acting (no offense to either of them; with faces like that, they don't have to be talented). All he had to do was look handsome and come across as completely insincere as he promised each lady that she was his one and only. The film showed the audience his consistent insincerity from the get-go; as he told how he was wounded in battle, the visual cut back to a completely different narrative. He claimed he was a Quaker and refused to carry a weapon, and over his dialogue, we saw him shooting soldiers. So, when he said lovely things to Elizabeth Hartman, Jo Ann Harris, or Geraldine Page, we weren't concerned that he was a bad actor. He was supposed to be a bad actor, and these women were so starved for male attention, they believed him. Either that, or he was so handsome, they couldn't think straight, so they believed him.

If you've heard of this movie, you've probably heard of the famous scene. If you haven't, I won't ruin it for you. But, it was surprisingly gruesome for the time period. The remake, in contrast, cut the famous scene entirely and cut to "the morning after". Honestly, I was expecting to hate this movie and find it stupid and pointless. But I was pleasantly surprised. It was gratuitously entertaining, Elizabeth Hartman was great against type, and Clint Eastwood was extremely handsome. What more did I need?

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to gruesome content, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie will not be your friend. Every time Clint Eastwood has a flashback or doesn't feel well, there is handheld, swerving, or spinning camerawork, and it will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

They don't make 'em like they used to, including scary movies. Scary movies used to be appropriate for everyone to watch, but you can't find too many of those anymore. If you're looking for something slightly spooky and won't scar your children, go back in time and rent Panic Room. Jodie Foster and Kristen Stewart are a mother-daughter team who have to hide in their secure panic room when burglars break in. That's about it. We pretty much know nothing bad is going to happen to them, but we can still cringe and gasp at all the appropriate moments.

That being said, Panic Room isn't actually a good movie. It's not terrible, and it certainly won't hurt you. But Jodie seems like she knows she's stuck in a rut of thrillers, thanks to Silence of the Lambs, and since the plot isn't exactly a nail-biter, it's one of those flicks you don't have to press pause on when you go to get a popcorn refill.

There are very few movies I wish I'd never seen. I can get over a bad movie easily - but one as disturbing as The Paperboy unfortunately gets burned in my brain. I'm working on forgetting it, but it's slow going. Honestly, I can't think of any reason to recommend this movie. It's violent, gruesome, explicit, frightening, disgusting, disturbing, and wholly unnecessary. And it singlehandedly made me avoid seeing any more John Cusack films. Why would he take on this role? He makes Hannibal Lector look like a tamed kitten. Perhaps Nicole Kidman just wanted to look cute in bleach-blonde hair and short shorts, perhaps Matthew McConaughey just wanted to go against type, and perhaps Zac Efron just wanted to be taken seriously in a drama and this was the only script he'd been offered. I doubt any of those reasons to be true - but what possible excuse can John Cusack provide?

What pride can anyone take in acting in (and helping to create, for I point an accusatory finger to all those behind the scenes as well) a film that makes the audience literally sick to their stomachs? Where is the entertainment, inspiration, or art? I take the firm stance that all audience members' lives would have been improved had this film never been made. And no one involved in its creation would have suffered if their resumés didn't boast of The Paperboy.

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence, sex scenes, and disturbing adult content, I wouldn't let my kids watch it. Also, there may or may not be a rape scene.

The Others is such a perfect Halloween movie! I'm not one for scary flicks, and I'll fully admit that I screamed my head off the first time I watched it - but for those who like to scream and hide behind a pillow, it's perfect. Of course, the second time I watched it, I still screamed my head off.

Nicole Kidman, looking the prettiest she's ever looked, lives in her large estate with her two young children, waiting for her husband to return home from the war. It takes place in England, so expect a lot of fog. Every time I wake up to a foggy morning here in sunny California, I experience a few seconds of panic - and I have to remind myself that I haven't seen the movie in years and there's nothing to be scared of. But in the film, there's plenty to be scared of! Spooky noises, unexplained activity, and creepy new servants. Those who actually like horror movies will probably laugh that I name this as one of the scariest films I've ever seen; but if you've read my reviews, you know that I Know What You Did Last Summer is usually all I can handle. I highly recommend a rental this October, and even if you're not frightened, you'll be able to appreciate a wonderful performance from Nicole Kidman. It's one of her best!

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to scary content involving children, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

I love the beginning of Practical Magic! I love it so much, I sometimes watch the first half on Halloween, and then I turn it off after it starts getting too scary. I'm a lightweight, and the second half of this Alice Hoffman story is just too creepy. But the beginning is very sweet. There's an old New England family that dates back their lineage to witches, and all the women are cursed to never fall in love. Two sisters feel very differently about the curse. One is determined to break it, and she grows up boy crazy. The second is more serious, and she creates a list of impossible demands a man must possess in order to win her heart and break the spell. As they grow up and become Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock, they find "love" in their own ways. Nicole is a wild child, going from one bad boy to the next. Sandra still lives in the same small town and has made a life for herself. My favorite scene is when she meets her true love, Mark Feuerstein. They're both going about their ordinary days, when suddenly Cupid's arrows strike them. They're pulled through town by their hearts, running and searching until they finally find each other. Cue the wedding bells.

When does it turn from cute to spooky? When Nicole Kidman comes back to town with her violent, creepy, worse-than-bad boyfriend in tow. All the innocent spells and witchcraft from their aunties, Dianne Wiest and Stockard Channing, are in the first half. The dangerous spells and hoodoo-voodoo show up with Nicole. But I recognize I'm a major lightweight. People who actually like getting scared on Halloween will probably love this movie. It's definitely iconic, and they're making a sequel soon!

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to frightening content, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Forget the handkerchief; you'll need the entire Kleenex box to get through My Life. Michael Keaton's incredible performance in what might be the biggest tearjerker of the decade (possibly only beaten out by The Perfect Storm) will have you bawling so hard, you'll find yourself tearing up whenever anyone even mentions his name. He plays a young man diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor, and after a series of medical and alternative attempts, has to get his affairs in order. His wife, Nicole Kidman, is pregnant, and he knows he'll die before she gives birth. His son will never know the sound of his voice, never be influenced by his expressions, and have no memory of him. He won't be a part of his son's life; he'll never give him advice, listen to his problems, help guide him, or have any sort of relationship with him.

Before you watch this (if you decide to), remember it was made in 1993. In 1993, people didn't have YouTube channels recording their every move to show their "followers". Michael Keaton does something for his unborn child that won't seem like a big deal today: he videotapes himself talking, teaching, and guiding his son through the different stages of his life. If you're not able to appreciate that, you're not in a good position to watch this movie. If you are able to, you're in a terrible position to watch it! Your eyes will be raw, your nose will be red, and your heart will ache. Watch at your own risk, and don't invite me to movie night.

Don't throw anything at me, I beg you. I've seen Moulin Rouge! Four times, and I just can't stand it. I abhor mixing modern details into period pieces. I don't think Baz Luhrman is a talented director. And, having written three musicals, I have no respect for "musicals" that are just a collection of popular songs. Revues like Jersey Boys and Mamma Mia! Are their own subgenre, catering to audience members who basically want a sing-a-long or a tribute concert of their favorite artist. But Moulin Rouge! Is a hodge-podge, including "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend", "Like a Virgin", and "Your Song". Fans of the film (and yes, I realize there are millions of them) think it's a stroke of brilliance to pay homage to Marilyn Monroe and Elton John in the same movie. I consider it a stroke of laziness.

To be kind, I'll cut short my criticism. Since I'm in the vast, million-to-one, minority, I realize no one really wants to read about why I can't stand this modern classic. I'll end with two compliments - what a shock! Nicole Kidman did look very pretty and wore some beautiful outfits. And it was responsible for the comeback of the film musical genre. The following year, Chicago won Best Picture, and the rest is history.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie will not be your friend. In nearly every scene, there is some sort of flashy camerawork, and the endless movements, zooms, spins, and altered speeds will make you very sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

I was shown Margot at the Wedding in college. I have no idea why. The teacher who chose to give up his teaching period to show the film couldn't stop giggling and blushing as he told us about the most memorable scene: Nicole Kidman giving herself a treat. The most confusing aspect, for me was that it was supposed to be a screenwriting class, and not once did the professor compliment, or even mention, the screenplay. All he seemed to care about was Nicole's bedroom scene. Why didn't he just rewatch the film by himself? Why waste a two-hour class period forcing his eighteen-year-old students to watch it?

I'll never know. At that age, I wasn't bold enough to ask him.

If anyone actually cares about the story, it's an indie story with extremely flawed characters who come together for a family wedding. It's excellent casting for Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Jason Leigh to play sisters. But couldn't they have done that in another movie? There is absolutely no point to this movie. The sisters don't like each other, and they argue, bicker, accuse, blame, and fight. Nicole thinks Jennifer's fiancé Jack Black is a loser. Nicole has emotional problems and struggles as a single mother. Nothing gets resolved, because, let's face it: in real life, if you hate your sibling that much, one day before a wedding won't be enough to work through all your issues and create a happy family. There are, sadly, way too many dysfunctional people in the world today. They might relate to this movie, and the similar indie flick Rachel Getting Married, but the rest of us don't get much entertainment value out of it. I didn't like Rachel and I didn't like this one. It has to be an exceptional film for me to enjoy a dysfunctional family arguing about mostly idle problems, ruining what is supposed to be the happiest day of someone's life.

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to adult content and sex scenes, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

There are going to be lots of people interested and invested in the storyline of Lion, but I wasn't one of them. To me, if a child has been adopted into a loving family, it doesn't make much sense to try and find his biological parents. It will undoubtedly lead to disappointment and pain, for the child and both sets of parents. "Finding" oneself has to come from within, not without. However, I wasn't adopted, so perhaps I don't understand the inextinguishable curiosity.

The story starts off with a tragic and upsetting scene of how a mother loses her son at a train station in Calcutta because the little boy falls asleep on a bench. The boy winds up in the foster system, and finally gets adopted by an affluent white couple, Nicole Kidman and David Wenham. While Dev Patel grows up responsibly, the other little boy they adopt later, Divian Ladwa, gets into a lot of trouble. Eventually, Dev decides he wants to find his birth mother and siblings. He's living with his girlfriend, Rooney Mara, and he feels incomplete without revisiting his past. Since his situation was unique and far different than the common one I described above, I understand his quest. But, Dev's, Divian's, and Rooney's characters weren't very compelling. They were extremely difficult to root for, and as the story dragged along, I found myself checking my watch. Lion is very much an "indie" drama, with flawed characters who flounder around more than they grow.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. There is lots of handheld camerawork, and that will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

"You're a corker, Shannon. Aye, what a corker you are," Tom Cruise grins to his offscreen bride and onscreen love interest, Nicole Kidman, in Far and Away. Every woman in the audience swoons, wishes Nicole didn't exist, and hopes they can get someone half as cute, half as passionate, and half as devoted. Every woman will be disappointed.

This Ron Howard helmed epic has all the makings of a classic, which is why it's become a staple the past thirty years. Has anyone not seen it? My fellow Irish-Americans have probably watched it more times than they can count. It starts off in the Old Country, and when Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise immigrate to the United States, they face all the usual challenges our ancestors faced. In a way, the movie checks all the boxes, but it doesn't feel cheesy - because it's true! There were terrible people who swindled naïve newcomers out of their life savings. There was Irish prejudice, difficulty finding work, and poverty. Factory sweatshops were terrible, and many unskilled men felt they had no other way to make money than to use their fists. The "fighting Irish" wasn't just a baseless nickname. And finally, there was the great Oklahoma land rush. In a way, the story tells itself. It's as if you gathered a bunch of Irish-Americans in a bar and asked them to tell stories of their ancestors coming to this country.

Far and Away is a classic epic, an unforgettable love story, and a perfect movie to watch on St. Patrick's Day. If, somehow, you've let this movie pass you by the past thirty years, what are you waiting for?

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. In the beginning when Tom Cruise's father dies, the camera spins in a circle as it rises in the air. This camera technique is repeated again in the final scene, and that will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

The beginning of Dead Calm is totally unnecessary. It could have started with the main couple sailing on their boat, for a romantic getaway or to soothe marital problems. There was no point in showing their little boy fly through the windshield during a car accident. It didn't apply to the rest of the story, and it didn't add to either of the characters' personal struggles. Dead Calm is a cheap thriller; it's not a tragic recovery story of two parents who have lost their only child. The rest of the story doesn't even reference the child or the accident. Why include that set-up?

We'll never know. But if you're in the mood for a cheap thriller with a ton of beefcake and cheesecake to lure in the audience, it's quite entertaining. I'm pretty sure Billy Zane doesn't ever put on a shirt, and Nicole Kidman constantly and gratuitously flashes her legs around. Poor Sam Neill doesn't get any opportunity to be sexy, although he certainly can be when allowed in other films. He spends most of the time trapped on a different boat, fully clothed. Although he starts off trying to heal Nicole from her grief, they soon rescue Billy from a so-called shipwreck, and when Sam doesn't believe his story, he leaves his bereaved (and scantily clad) wife alone with an untrustworthy (and scantily clad) stranger to explore Billy's sinking ship.

So, as you can tell, it's not the greatest story. But is anyone really watching it for the story? Probably not. If you think Nicole Kidman in her "infant phase" is cute, with her wild perm and baby fat still in her cheeks (or if you think Marisa Tomei should have picked Billy Zane in Only You), you'll probably want to at least try this one. Sam Neill fans need not apply. It's just not his movie. But it was very nice of him to lend his name and star power to help out a fellow Australian get a break on the big screen.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. There are many bobbing camera movements on the boat, the opening scene has a circling camera shot, and when Sam Neill explores the boat, there are some flashing lights, and that will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!" Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to an upsetting scene involving a child, an upsetting scene involving an animal, I wouldn't let my kids watch it. Also, there may or may not be a rape scene.

What happens when you merge The Towering Inferno, The Poseidon Adventure, and The Devil at 4 O'Clock? You get Paul Newman, William Holden, Red Buttons, and Ernest Borgnine, in a disaster movie about a volcanic explosion. Except, it's not very good. You can just stick with the original three if you're looking for a good time.

Amid the supporting cast are Jacqueline Bisset, James Franciscus, Valentina Cortese, Edward Albert, Barbara Carrera, Pat Morita, and Burgess Meredith. Seriously, though, you don't have to sit through this one. Not all disaster movies are fantastic. Sure, you'll get to see some special effects and scary scenes involving lava, but it's just such a copy of all its predecessors, it doesn't keep you invested. There are the old fogies who talk about their grandkids, the love triangle, the noble hero, people who refuse to face the seriousness of the situation, and all the other tropes you're expecting to find. I love Paul Newman, but I'm sure he was frustrated at having to walk through this movie. At least he got far better quality flicks later for the rest of the 1980s.

I'll always give a John Wayne western a chance, but surprisingly, I had to give Rio Bravo three tries before making it all the way through. It just doesn't have a strong beginning. John Wayne is his strong and steady self, and Ward Bond is his faithful sidekick. So far so good. But then we see Dean Martin is going to try and be the heavy dramatic second lead, with Ricky Nelson as the ingenue and Walter Brennan as Walter Brennan. And nothing much happens, except there's a bad guy in the hoosegow and Duke has to make sure he doesn't escape. It takes about an hour before it gets good, so if you're a die-hard Duke fan, you'll stick with it. You'll be rewarded by seeing him with one of his favorite leading ladies: Angie Dickinson.

Duke and Angie have totally scorching chemistry together. I read in his biography that he thought she was a very sexy woman, and it showed on the screen. Even though everything is totally G-rated, it's as if they can't keep their hands off each other. Angie always gives his behind a double-take when he walks away from her, and her knowing smile and throaty chuckle speak volumes. In the best scene of the entire film, Angie offers to let him sleep in her room so the bad guys won't find him so easily. He's a bit grumpy, so she tells him to think about it. "Sleep well," she smirks as he walks down the hall to his own room. "You're not helping any," he replies. We see his mental struggle as he glances between their two rooms, and it's all we can do not to cheer out loud when he returns to Angie, picks her up, and carries her up the stairs like Rhett Butler. Cue the black out, and cue the cheerful music in the morning as Duke walks with a spring in his step.

And, surprise surprise, as the film progresses, Dean Martin actually does a fine job. He just got stuck with a boring script and an audience predisposed to not take him seriously. The running time is pretty long and drawn out for what the film has to say, so Dean's performance gets pushed to the back of everyone's mind. We're all left wondering, "When is something going to happen?" Besides Angie getting a friendly bedfellow, not much does.

What a fun thriller! I've seen Before I Go to Sleep three times, and I'm ready for Halloween again. It's not spooky, but if you're a lightweight like me and prefer to watch nailbiters instead of monster movies, it's a perfect choice for October. It's sexy, has great acting, and will keep you guessing from start to finish.

Nicole Kidman balances vulnerability and strength as the heroine, a woman with short-term memory loss. She makes a video diary so she can communicate with herself every morning when she starts with a blank slate, and the opening scene takes us to a particularly creepy segment. She's frightened to death and doesn't know who to trust, but she knows things are not as they seem. When we go back in time slightly (don't worry, the entire film isn't one giant flashback), we see her daily routine with her long-suffering husband Colin Firth (who is just incredible in this role), and how she needs an enormous amount of help to function. We learn about the slight inconsistencies, and alongside her, we start to ask questions, even though we can't quite form the words. Something doesn't feel right, but what?

If you like this premise, just rent it (or buy it). There's no point in spoiling more of the story for you. You'll love it. And just to spare you, don't make the mistake of thinking the original novel will be just as good if not better than the movie. I read the book, and it was terrible. Hats off to writer-director Rowan Joffe for adapting the basic story and improving it so much!

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. The camera rotates in a full circle during the opening shot, and during some of the flashbacks there is some handheld camerawork, and that will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

I couldn't believe this mediocre western was over two hours! Usually, early talkies were 60-70 minutes. Ninety minutes would have been considered lengthy. I didn't even make it through all of The Big Trail, even though John Wayne was adorable with his long, curly hair. This old, oldie was bad enough to make the audience never want to watch another western again. No offense to Raoul Walsh or John Wayne. Perhaps it was entertaining in 1930, but no one would call it that now. What a difference a hundred years make.

If you do want to watch Duke's first starring role (and his first time being billed as 'John Wayne' rather than 'Duke Morrison' as he was during his extra and stuntman work), you can try to get engrossed in a story about a wagon train leading folks through the Oregon Trail. The very handsome leading man has his eye on Marguerite Churchill, but she won't give him the time of day. There are tons of nature-based obstacles, so the covered wagons will only make it through if they can conquer fires, floods, and acts of God. There's also an ornery villain, Tyrone Power, Sr., who is trying to keep a low profile after killing Duke's friend the previous winter.

This is an old-fashioned melodrama, with all the actors trying to reach the back row. It's pretty painful. If it were a silent movie, we wouldn't need any title cards. John Wayne is really cute, but you can just watch a few minutes of this movie, fifteen minutes at most, and get a good look at him. Then switch to Stagecoach.

What a sad, sad movie. And what a play! If you're looking for natural dialogue, you won't find it here. While it doesn't run like a filmed live performance, it's clear there were little changes to Horton Foote's original stage play. It's practically a one-woman show, with veteran actress Geraldine Page taking the lead as a very unhappy woman with nothing to live for except her memory of how wonderful her youth was in her hometown, Bountiful. She stays in her son's house and drives his wife, Carlin Glynn, crazy. They fight incessantly, which makes the only man in the house, John Heard, feel helpless and emasculated. John and Carlin have their own troubles without a meddling mother-in-law. When Geraldine tries to run away from home to visit Bountiful, John and Carlin feel compelled to alert the authorities and try to stop her.

Why stop her? Why can't they let a sorrowful old woman have one little dream fulfilled? Because this is a tragic play, that's why. While on the train, Geraldine befriends a young lady, Rebecca De Mornay, and tells her a bit of her life story. She's had a very sad life. If you manage to make it through those scenes without reaching for the Kleenex box, you're made of stronger stuff than I am. But there won't be a dry eye in the house when Geraldine pleads with the police for just an ounce of freedom. She weeps and explains that she really isn't a terrible woman, that she's been turned into a terrible woman because of how her life turned out and who she lives with. It's such a tragic scene, I don't think I could bear to watch this movie for the second time.

Geraldine Page won her long coveted and long overdue Academy Award for this movie, beating out Whoopi Goldberg's performance of a lifetime in The Color Purple. Although Geraldine's win was by no means a travesty, against this competition, she should have taken second place. Here at the Hot Toasty Rags, when we "took away" Geraldine's win, we meant no disrespect to the extremely professional and capable actress. This was her seventh Rag nomination, and she already had two newspaper trophies under her belt. We didn't wait until her last great performance to let her win; we rewarded her consistently when it was due. Watch this heavy drama at your own risk, with your own Kleenex box.

If Bette Davis can have fun with What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, then Geraldine Page can have fun with What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? It was a fad for former leading ladies of the glamorous age to take on a completely melodramatic horror movie and make a fool of herself. In this one, Geraldine is joined by two other old-timers: Ruth Gordon and Mildred Dunnock. But she's definitely the lead. She's broke and widowed, and takes an unorthodox approach to her money problems: she kills her housekeepers and robs them. After every murder, she gives her signature maniacal laugh. If you're not a fan of hers, there's no way you'll like this movie. You'll think she's incredibly irritating and just relying on her old gimmicks. If you do like her, you'll think it's enormous fun as she gets to ham up the villainous role.

I think she gives a very good performance, chilling and insane. You see the little thrill she gets from sneaking up on her victims, and when the realization hits her of what she's done, she can't do anything else but laugh. Yes, the movie is a bit ridiculous. Yes, it's a cheap horror flick. But she certainly puts her whole heart into it. And since it looks like she's having a ball, I'm happy for her.

There are three reasons to watch this psychedelic 1960s comedy: to see Elizabeth Hartman play a go-go dancer, to hear The Lovin' Spoonful's fun songs, and to see Rip Torn and Geraldine Page play a husband and wife onscreen for the only time. If those three reasons don't interest you, then skip it. It isn't actually a great movie. It isn't even really a great movie. But since I got the biggest kick out of seeing ol' Lizzie shed her sunglasses for knee-high boots and Mr. And Mrs. "Torn Page" together set to the tunes of The Lovin' Spoonful, I enjoyed it.

Peter Kastner is actually the lead, and an awkward one at that. He's a young, inexperienced kid who thinks moving to New York City is the key to discovering life. While there, the big bad city swallows him whole. He goes to nightclubs, discovers sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll, and falls in love with a wild child: Miss Hartman. His parents (Torn Page) disapprove, but can they all strike a balance between his immaturity, self-discovery, and respect for his family? You'll have to watch the movie to find out.

Why would anyone think a plot involving children abduction would be a good cartoon for Disney? I guess it showed what state Disney Studios was in in the 1970s, before they got their groove back with The Little Mermaid in 1989. But the titular rescuers are a group of mice who devote their lives to saving kidnapped children. It's cute for mice to fly all over the world and do good deeds, but why do those deeds have to be rescuing kidnapped kids? It's a scary world out there, so why fill the kids, who are snug in their beds at home, with more fright? And as far as touching viewers, how many abducted kids are going to have access to a television set so they can watch The Rescuers and be filled with hope that they'll someday get rescued by a pair of mice?

Probably not many. But if you were a kid in the 1970s, you probably saw Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor in their adventures to rescue the poor little girl from the clutches of Geraldine Page and Joe Flynn. It wasn't my cup of tea. I realize Disney cartoons always have some little element that's too scary for children, but I couldn't really get behind the basic premise of this one.

In this gritty drama, Eric Roberts and Mickey Rourke play idiot cousins who think it's easier to succeed in a life of crime than sticking it out with steady, honest work. These are the kind of guys you hope your daughters don't bring home, the kind you hope you don't bump into in a dark alley. Of course, since they're not too bright, their plans of robbing and getting rich don't work out. Only, this isn't a comedy of errors. It's violent, dark, and you aren't even rooting for the heroes.

Far and away, the best part of this movie is Geraldine Page's performance. She's only on the screen briefly, but she steals the show. When you see the lowlife, embittered, perpetual smoker coughing up a lung, you can't believe she's the same prairie wife in Hondo, high class Southern lady in Summer and Smoke, or suicidal mother in Interiors. It's as if another actress took her name and impersonated her on the screen. But since she's probably in the movie for ten minutes, is it really worth watching just to see her versatility?