LDB_Movies's reviews

Paul Muni was an actor who was way ahead of his time. Who else could have played Louis Pasteur, Emile Zola, and a gangster, all with perfect accents, inflections, and facial expressions? His kind of acting was so way ahead of his time - most actors in the 1930s and 1940s were typecast into roles that didn't allow them to play a variety of characters. But not Paul Muni. Most actors in the 1930s and 1940s did NOT do accents, even though by today's standards, we consider this a requirement - but not Paul Muni.

Having just watched "The Life of Emile Zola", Here his portrayal of Eddie Kagel blew me away. The movie itself is slight, and has some humorous moments. But Paul Muni's performance raises it above the rest.

I wanted to like this movie, especially since I am a fan of Clint Eastwood as a director and Hilary Swank as an actress. The previews didn't interest me at all - but the almost universal praise heaped on this film did make me want to see it.

I agree with the reviewer who said the film felt "scripted" - not only that, but watching scenes (near the beginning) with Clint and Morgan were like watching people "act" and "play the scene". Hilary Swank saves the day with her performance, believable and truthful. Clint's work later in the film is exemplary. Morgan Freeman is, well, Morgan Freeman, and here he plays simply a variation on his "Driving Miss Daisy" character, mumbling through some scenes making his words incomprehensible.

I didn't feel an emotional connection to this film at all - I don't see it as "Clint's masterpiece" at all - "Mystic River" is a far superior film, which had me extremely emotionally involved. The Morgan Freeman voice-over really got on my nerves very early on. I am not a fan of voice-over - I believe it's an easy way out of explaining things rather than SHOWING them.

I can't understand all the hype about MDB - I really can't. I give it (a very generous) 7 out of 10.

This movie is so bad that I kept looking for the little guys at the bottom of the screen, for I was sure I was watching an episode of "Mystery Science Theatre 3000".

I cannot begin to describe everything that is wrong with this film. Others have already done so many times over. Please read Roger Ebert's review - he nails it on the head but is still much too kind. This movie is boring, too long, and has virtually no redeeming qualities.

I NEVER walk out of movies, no matter how bad they are. Last night, while watching "Troy", I was tempted. In fact, the desperation, confusion, and uncertainty in my trying to decide whether to leave at about the 45-minute mark was more moving and involving than anything in the film! Alas, I stayed, and hence lost 2:40 of my life and $7 of my money (I used a pass).

Never mind whether ancient Greeks should be introspective (although if you believe in anything Julian Jaynes said, they probably even COULDN'T do so), this entire production was a waste of time. I can't even imagine anyone watching the dailies and thinking, "yes, that's good". This movie makes "Gladiator" look like the best movie ever made, simply because it succeeded in bringing an ancient civilization to life. After watching "Troy", you will have no clue as to what life was like in ancient Greece.

Brad Pitt and Eric Bana do a decent job with what they are given. The young woman playing Achilles' Trojan "love-slave" (I forget her name) gives perhaps the only really great performance in this movie. Peter O'Toole thinks that going bug-eyed somehow conveys some emotion, and Julie Christie is virtually unrecognizable. The woman playing Helen of Troy is not nearly beautiful enough and is a terrible actress.

Save your money. Save your time. PLEASE - you are now warned as I was not fortunate enough to be. Rating: 4 out of 10.

"The Yearling", an adaptation of the Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings novel about a Florida family in the 1800s, is a fairly well-made family film that suffers mostly from bad acting and a slow plot.

Jane Wyman, as the mother, blows every one else off the screen. You can see why she would go on to win the Oscar only a couple of years later for a non-speaking role in "Johnny Belinda".

Gregory Peck, an excellent actor otherwise, is out of his league, poorly attempting a southern accent while trying to play the staid father.

The worst acting of all comes from Claude Jarman Jr. who portrays the young Jody as if he were acting in a silent film. Less is more, Claude. He thankfully retired from acting about 10 years later, after as many films.

The cinematography is beautiful, and worthy of the awards it won.

Overall, I give this film 6 out of 10 - thumbs down, except for fans of Jane Wyman.

I had high expectations for this film, mostly from the glowing reviews and a position in the iMDB's Top 250 films of all time. I must admit that the subject matter didn't interest me, however. In fact, the presence of the aborigine New Zealanders was one of the disappointing things to me about the movie "The Piano" (which I otherwise loved).

I saw it last night with a friend - he loved it, I did not. To me, it was very very slow moving; a simple plot told in typical movie cliches, with mostly cardboard characters, and except for Keisha Castle-Hughes (who is truly excellent in her part), acting that did not convince me at all. About 10 minutes into the movie, I could predict exactly what would happen.

The movie picks up about 3/4 of the way through with the first appearance of whales, and the ending is quite satisfying.

My friend, who has an extensive background and knowledge of Native Americans, appreciated the movie for its honest portrayal of another culture. I would expect that unless you have this kind of background, you won't like this movie (although from others' comments here, I guess that's not the case). Here in Los Angeles, there were actual Maori people in the audience who were crying throughout the entire movie. I guess they felt a strong emotional connection.

That was my problem exactly, however - I felt no emotional connection to the characters or the story at all. So I was just watching a movie with a plot that I've seen before (kind of like The Karate Kid III meets Rabbit Proof Fence) that could not hold my interest.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

I was really looking forward to The Two Towers. I thought that "Fellowship of the Ring" was good, but just so-so. Certainly not worth all the hype and Oscar nominations.

This film bored me to tears for the first 2 hours. The last hour was good - if only the rest of the film could have been as interesting. I literally almost walked out of the theatre during the first two hours - and I NEVER walk out on movies.

I can't believe it was nominated for Best Picture this year. I can't believe that everyone who voted for it actually SAT THROUGH it! No way!

Yes, the cinematography, sound, and other technical aspects are all top notch. But that doesn't make up for the flaws, namely:

• lack of a plot - or at least an understandable plot

• lack of a reprise (however briefly) of what happened in the first movie to remind stupid people like me where we are in the story. I couldn't follow what was going on.

• way too too too long

• many elements seemed stolen from other films - perhaps they were visualized as they were in the book, but since I haven't read the book I don't know. Moving trees like in "Wizard of Oz". Gollum is the same as Dobby from "Harry Potter". The dwarf with the height problem is really identical to Hagrid from same "Harry Potter". Even the big elephants reminded me of the huge walking things from "The Empire Strikes Back."

If you want to see beautiful footage of New Zealand, watch the Travel Channel.

The ONLY saving grace out of this whole movie was Sean Astin, whom, as in the first one, is the only one who seems to be really emoting and who seems to understand what he is saying. He is a great actor.

I want my 3 hours back!!!

Perhaps I'm in the minority... OK, yes, I am definitely in the minority, but I just saw "Lord of the Rings" yesterday and am still wondering what all the fuss is about?

Yes, the movie is technically brilliant, from special effects, to art direction, to cinematography. But the story didn't move me at all.

I admit I am NOT a fan of fantasy - "Star Wars" left me similarly unmoved. But to say that "Lord..." is one of the greatest movies of all time is confusing to me. And it's not just IMDB voters but movie critics alike.

One thing I noticed in the film (and since I have not read the book except for "The Hobbit" I don't know if this is similar) is a lot of homoeroticism. I wonder if I'm just reading something into it or was my mind wandering so much that I had to think of subtext, or what?

Did anyone else notice this? From the opening "smoke rings" sequence (Gandolf's smoke boat goes into Bilbo's smoke ring) to the lack of female characters, to the womb-like "evil eye", to men convincing other men to stay with the men and not go with the women...

Anyway, I give the movie 7 out of 10 stars (normally I'd give it 8 but it's overrated here so it needs a bit of reality).

I don't usually comment but after reading the long list of negative reviews, I feel I must. "Gosford Park" is an intelligent character study of both the "upstairs" and the "downstairs" in an English manor. The fact that a murder is committed during the film is only incidental. In fact, as several people have stated, I also didn't care whodunit... that would miss the point of this film.

To compare it unfavorably to "Clue", a ridiculously bad film, is both insulting and misleading. If you want a murder mystery, go see something else. If you want a cleverly drawn British comedy with true heart and sentiment, then see "Gosford Park". If you can't understand the accents, perhaps you should focus your attention better. I admit at first I had a hard time hearing several characters. But after redirecting my attention towards understanding them, I had no trouble.

I admit to being a huge fan of Robert Altman - he has an incredible way of presenting "slice of life" films with multiple multiple characters and in "Gosford Park" he does not disappoint.

Just a few comments to balance out what others have said:

Will Smith already proved in "Six Degrees of Separation" that he CAN act. He was very good here. Not Oscar-worthy in my opinion, but a very good job nonetheless. More impressive for me were Jamie Foxx (who also impressed me a lot in "Any Given Sunday") and Nona Gaye (who I didn't know had any acting talent at all - but I guess she does).

This movie, like a lot of Michael Mann films, sets a tone, an atmosphere, and goes with it. That's the reason for overlong scenes like the opening nightclub scene and the jog in Zaire. Tell me that after the opening scene, you didn't get a great feel for the 60's - the period in which most of this movie takes place.

I will defend the jog in Zaire scene too - Roger Ebert even complained that it went on too long. But during the scene, I was thinking lots of things - "I wonder what Ali is thinking?" "I guess he's thinking of how different his life is than these poor people. He's thinking how much of a hero he has become to people he doesn't even know. How much responsibility he has to win the fight because these people all support him. How Africa is his peoples' homeland and how he's basically come home." All those thoughts went through my head and I think that's exactly what Michael Mann intended. The scene NEEDED to run on and on to convey all those different thoughts and ideas.

At the end, I admit I was a little disappointed because I had hoped the film would cover more of Ali's recent life including battling Parkinson's disease. But I guess that's for Ali 2.

Boy was I looking forward to this movie. Not just because I am a fan of Frank Darabont's previous films "The Green Mile" and "The Shawshank Redemption", but also because it was the first film in which I was an extra. I played one of the actors in convict uniforms in the studio scene at the beginning of the film. Unfortunately I am not visible in the scene (although all 4 of the other convicts I worked with ARE). The other two scenes we filmed at the studio were cut out of the film.

And that, I think, is part of the problem. This story needed more development at the beginning - it was too quick before the accident - we needed time to get to know the Jim Carrey character and appreciate who he was before everything happens. We also need more time to understand the problem he has and to let the seriousness of the issue sink in before moving on. That would help justify the movie's concluding scenes better.

If anything should have been cut, it's the very very slow moving middle of the film. This film makes "The Straight Story" look like "Gone in 60 Seconds" - that's how terribly slow it is. I even got up to use the bathroom at one point - something I NEVER do in movies.

The acting is passable but I expected more. While we were filming, Mr. Darabont would insist on many, many takes - as many as 25 for the outdoor studio scene. Jim Carrey said that this method of filming gives you "nuances" in performances that you don't get from just one take. I disagree. I think when you have that many takes, you get actors that are not willing to commit to "give it their all" because they know there will be another 20 takes to come (or because there have just been a previous 20 takes earlier and they are tired). And this shows clearly in the acting here.

I don't know whether to fault the script, the direction, or the acting-- I think it's a combination of all three. This movie simply does not work as a whole.

Rating - 6 out of 10.

I'm commenting only to make a few points about this film...

1. Jon Polito's performance (as the guy with the business idea) "blew me away". I must say this because I haven't heard anyone else say it.

2. Not only was the Cinematography in black and white superb, but the Art Direction (set decoration) and Makeup impeccable.

3. The Coen Brothers, after the huge success of "Fargo", could have turned around and made Fargo 2, 3, and 4, but they haven't. They are truly dedicated to the craft of making movies, not making money. For that alone, I have the most respect.

Didn't see this film when it came out because it didn't appeal to me at first - but just watched it on cable. Now I am VERY critical of most movies and it takes a lot to please me. That being said, this wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.

Actually it was kind of cute. The best parts were in the first half, when the girls were dressing up in all kinds of different costumes and going "undercover" to scout out the crime and criminals. Then unfortunately the movie turned into Jane Bond and went way over the top. The first half is very true to the TV series and the second half isn't. Other complaints are the presence of Tom Green (not just in the movie but basically on planet Earth) and the stupid Matrix-Crouching Tiger fight scenes. But those fight scenes were required in every movie in the year 2000, I think - and now that the 3 Musketeers remake with those fight scenes bombed - we have a reprieve for a while. Phew!

Overall, 7 out of 10 rating.

why this movie is so acclaimed by the voters on iMDB. A friend bought me the tape of this movie for Christmas, and I had never seen it. I just got around to watching it, and it is definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I do like good Christmas movies, however - The Bishop's Wife and the recent remake, The Preacher's Wife immediately come to mind - but this is nowhere near those.

The ONLY redeeming value in this movie is Melinda Dillon's performance - she is always good - and she acts everyone off the screen. My complaints are numerous, but most importantly, this movie has NO PLOT and NO CONFLICT! There is nothing to keep you interested - I want my hour and a half back! What a waste of celluloid. This movie is sickenly sweet without EARNING the right to that sweetness - like "Home Alone" and others in the same genre do.

The scene where the kid has his mouth "washed out with soap" is a kick in the face to anyone who ever had this done for real. Pardon me, but sticking a bar of soap in the kid's mouth isn't quite cutting it. Also the scene where the kid is bullied and teased is also quite tame compared to the real thing. Movies like this really undermine the struggles of those people who had REAL problems as children.

The parents are entirely too old to have children that young, though most movies back in the 30's and 40's DID have parents that were too old. The main character is 9 years old but still believes in Santa Claus?

Again I'm back to the lack of conflict. Let's see, the kid wants a certain toy for Christmas and may or may not get it. That ranks right up there with "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" - sorry for the sarcasm. Oh yes, and there's a scene where the husband gets a lamp that the wife doesn't like.

Bottom line - this stinker doesn't deserve the 2 out of 10 rating I gave it and I'm getting rid of it on eBay as soon as I can.

Hmmm... Let's watch "The Red Violin" - the movie that came out of nowhere and won the Best Score Oscar a couple of years ago.

OK - typical story of an object through the years... but wait... it's told in a unique fashion - with clips of various timeframes - now and then - sort of like The English Patient - and it works.

This movie is much better than I thought - held my interest - each of the stories is interesting, and tied together nicely by the tarot card reader. The music, of course, is outstanding.

Why didn't this movie get a wider distribution? Why did it surprise me at the Oscars when it won Best Score? Why had I never heard of it until then? You tell me.

Rating: 8/10 stars.

After enjoying the incomparable Judy Holliday in the musical classic "Bells are Ringing", I was looking forward to seeing her talents in "Full of Life" - a movie that TV Guide gave 3 stars out of 4 and called a "comedy".

This is quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. It was painful to sit through. It's not a comedy by any stretch of the imagination. There are only a few (that's exactly three) mild chuckles in the entire film.

The incredible comic genius of Judy Holliday is completely wasted here. Approaching her 9th month of pregnancy, she respectively smokes, lifts heavy objects, drinks, and flies in an airplane. The Italian relatives in this film are nothing but stereotypes.

The only possibly redeeming value that this movie has (and this is quite a stretch and does not really redeem the movie nor make it any more worth watching) is the slightly advanced thinking in the script that makes Judy's character a scientist (not "just a housewife") and that includes a respectful examination of the meaning that religion has in a marriage. These ideas are quite advanced for a movie from 1956 that claims to be a comedy.

I admit that sometimes one's mood while watching a movie can affect one's opinion of that movie. I accept that "Toy Story 2" (which I also rated as "poor") may not have been as bad as I said it was, considering that I was in a very bad mood while watching it and didn't really want to be there.

That being said, I could win $10,000,000 in the lottery, be jumping for joy, and "Full of Life" would still be a stinker.

I'm glad I waited to see this on cable. I had heard it was "not as good" as "Tumbleweeds", which essentially tells the same story. I rented "Tumbleweeds" last year and loved it. "Anywhere But Here" is too long, lacks a direct plot, and not even the good acting can save it. Halfway through I picked up a magazine and periodically glanced at the movie between pages - and I didn't miss anything.

The bad points: - the plot was meandering and overall the movie was too long

• the use of flashbacks to transition scenes instead of to give us new information (example - after telling us that Adele bought the Mercedes for the trip, we flashback to.... you guessed it, Adele buying the Mercedes... for the trip!)

• Bonnie Bedelia is totally wasted in her miniscule role

The good points: - Natalie Portman perfectly underplays her role and thereby gives it much emotional depth

• Susan Sarandon does the best she can (I am a big fan of hers) with a terribly-written role.

So, my advice is.... SEE TUMBLEWEEDS!