Change Your Image
DriftedSnowWhite
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Star Trek: Generations (1994)
Mean-spirited, humiliating, bullying and condescension.
How much did Rick Berman ... (story) & Ronald D. Moore ... (story) & Brannon Braga ... (story) Ronald D. Moore ... (screenplay) & Brannon Braga ... (screenplay) work to solidify the true nature of too many of the crew as arrogant, classist pigs?
I have watched the movie several times, solely to see Shatner, because the balance of the movie is wretched. My primary focus is the opening scene where, even Riker, goes against character, (I don't know how Frakes didn't walk from the set unless his bit part in this scene was rewritten), and. Geordi shows how little he "sees," and understands, with Beverly Crusher, the worst of the lot.
Crusher, in fact, gets exactly what she deserves. Data proves he is the most human and humane. Why Worf didn't break the others in two is beyond comprehension.
What makes this movie valuable is that it firmly cements the good spirit and soul of the original Star Trek, but that is no reason to watch this film - unless you enjoy feeling ill. Besides, in general, it is just a bad and disturbed, disturbing film.
The Pink Panther Strikes Again (1976)
A wretched bit of the bizarre and destructive.
If you value the original Pink Panther film, and wish to hold it fondly in your film library. Do not watch this film. I have owned it for a long time, unable to decide whether to donate it - in which case an unsuspecting shopper will waste 25 cents (the current price of tapes at the Salvation 'Army, which, fortunately, still accept tapes), or deposit it in the transfer station hopper from which it will be taken to be burnt to a noxious gases.
The destruction is rampant. If I worked in the Art Department, if I worked properties, or set decoration, I would have needed to be institutionalized, watching all my work be smashed to smithereens. But the destruction if more than that, as Clouseau values nothing.
Do you want to sit through an entire film wishing the Inspector would get Clouseau and the sooner the better, or listen to the most crassly ignorant script? No.
Sex and the City (2008)
I doubt a sufficiently negative review exists.
I thought I'd caught a break today, finding a DVD of the movie at the dump's swap shop. As desperate as I was to have something new to watch, even for free - how can I express how every single atom of this movie is terrible? There isn't more to say about it. It's not a bad - bad movie that you can laugh at. It succeeds in wiping out all memory of the tv series as having had an atom of fun. When people paid to go to theaters to watch this thing, did management give refunds upon request? If not, did patrons ever return to view another movie and risk - well, the only word for it is, "pumishment/"
See How She Runs (1978)
Oh. Just realized I hadn't told her.
I was about to write this review, then remembered that when I worked with Ms. Woodward - it was a brief, but important, encounter, as I was building a prop for her - and starstruck - I never told her how much impact her portrayal in this film had on my life; that I wouldn't be standing there speaking to her if I had not been so very influenced by this film - and I send gratitude to Marvin S. Gluck for writing it. It is the most powerful film I ahve ever seen for women - for women who are mothers.
Of course, it wouldn't have been appropriate at the time, although Ms. Woodward could not have been more welcoming, nor kinder. Still, she was rehearsing a Chekov play.in Woodstock, and respectful distance seemed right. (Ms. Woodward
For years I tried to find the film and it appeared nowhere. When I say Woodward's performance and this film changed my life, I did not become a runner. (I have never even jogged). But I took a leap and plunged into theatre at a later age than is usually the case. A less than stellar prop was never carried so proudly.
The 10 stars are for the film, and given without sentiment. The sentiment popped up as I began to write.
Caddyshack (1980)
"Gross" would be praise.
I should have stuck with liking the groundhog. I own this movie and have watched it many times, always forcing myself to enjoy it. No more. You would need a shovel to pry the few bits of real humor from this pile of out-of-control, senseless, revolting, pile of muck.
Bill Murray's 'Carl' is allowed - ostensibly encourage by Ramis- to plunge the depths of psychotic sexual aberration. It is constant, and it is tedious. Bill Murray's 'Carl' 'famous' Dali Lama scene in which Murray's 'Carl' puts a real pitchfork to the throat of Peter. Berkrot's 'Angie D'Annunzio's' throat, should have been prohibited. It's not a prop pitchfork. A sneeze from Murray, or the slightest movement from Berkrot, could have killed Berkrot. Call me dull, but that was insane. But ok, apparently, with Ramis.
With the opening scene of ' Danny Noonan's' Roman Catholic sibling brood given his mother and father popping out siblings every 9 months, (a slap to Irish-Americans in general), 'Noonan' doesn't even think about birth control, despite his fellow caddys hardly being ignorant of more than the grossly ignorant 'safe times' of the month.
Two actors deserve credit in this mess for ACTING;
Brian Doyle-Murray's 'Lou Loomis', and. Scott Colomby's ...
'Tony D'Annunzio'.
Treasure Island (1999)
I liked this anti-literary. anti-establishment equalizer adaptational spoof.
What could be truer than the 'good guys' being in it for profit, just like the pirates. Greed was everything. All ethics and morals abandoned for treasure. I liked it that Jim fought back physically. He had, after all, been tending a bar in the middle of nowhere. How could Jim not have learned how to handle himself. And boy, does he in this movie. I liked the ending. It was the right ending, as the truest-of-the-true won. (That they could not possibly have sailed.a barque that minimally required a crew of 10, but I'm sure they eventually arrived - somewhere).
The casting was interesting. Actors who fit the time era more aptly cast in present-day ventures. But everything in this film is out of place, save foe the really good guys winning in the end. I admit it was a bit tough to see Jack Palance's Long John Silver portrayed as a down-on-his luck, defeated character, but this, too, was in keeping with the intent of this film.
The scene with the tart was the only "off" note, and not a little creepy, as she did seem to be offering her services to Jim, and served no purpose. Much of her character must have hit the cutting room floor.
The treasure itself, I won't elaborate on, even though this is marked as a Spoiler, but, yet again, the producers of this film illustrate that the 'good' guys, from whom the treasure was stolen, weren't so very 'good' after all.
This movie was not the 1934 film with Wallace Beery, Jackie Cooper, Lionel Barrymore, Lewis Stone, and Nigel Bruce. But it didn't have to be, and couldn't be. Nor is it "the book." The book is the book. This is a movie.
PS the Muppet characterization of Smolett kept popping to mind.
The Black Cat (1941)
Shame on the Director. Untethered Hugh Herbert. Antiques lovers beware.
I would love this movie 100% but for Hugh Herbert and his
Mr. Penny'. But first, let me get this out of the way: One of the prolific User Reviewers states that 'Mr. Penny' was the client. He wasn't. Bugs me that there i no way to communicate that to this reviewer. It's a big error. He classified the review as having Spoilers, and his review is otherwise fine, but this is a big, misleading error, and I can't do a thing about it). Don't you hate it when top reviewers who write good reviews, (I don't), make blatant errors? (I do).
I think that the estate of Hugh Herbert owes the Ed Wynn estate compensation for his utter rip-off of Ed Wynn - but without the style. Finesse, subtlety. A rip-off and a bad one.
What was the director thinking in giving Hugh Herbert carte blanch, no restraints. Were they related or something? Herbert's 'Mr. Penny' fairly kills this otherwise excellent movie, which I watch on a regular basis, (with no remote, and on VHS so I can't obliterate Hubert). And could the scriptwriters really have gotten so many yucks seeing Herbert's 'Mr. Penny' destroy all those antiques? Were they sophomoric adolescents, or did the director push for more of this destruction?
All other actors were perfectly cast and delivered 100%. The cinematography, set design, costuming, etc., is excellent. I don't recall if it was the same referenced User Reviewer who also said that the film could have been a good vehicle for Abbott & Costello. I disagree - vehemently. Save for Herbert, the film is quite elegant. Broderick Crawford's.'A. Gilmore Smith' is never an Abbott, nor a Costello in this film; it is only Hubert's unleashed nails-on-the-blackboard performance that would make anyone suggest it. (Even Costello wouldn't have been such an idiot).
Someone must be gathering all the movies where one character destroys the film, and will eventually release the movies without characters that make you feel murderous, and endings that do likewise. Let me know when this film gets the editing-out of all but the most appropriate, and short, Hubert scenes, will you?
Leaving Normal (1992)
STOP referencing that garbage 'Thelma & Louise' movie.
It dumbfounds me why anyone thinks that two women driving off a cliff is what women should do to have a good time. I find anyone who approves of 'Thelma & Louise' comatose? Moronic? I mean.. I mean..what is wrong with all of you who like that movie?
'Leaving Normal' results in no deaths. In fact, it brims with life. There are a number of wonderful surprises that a viewer won't anticipate. The women have the chops to see things through to a better life, even against the odds. Happy happenstance plays a big part.
The cinematography is superb. The actors were perfectly cast and expertly directed.
The Station Agent (2003)
Few scripts ever written are as soulful and beautiful.
I am indebted to writer/director Tom McCarthy for creating this film. It is the film I turn to for solace. I am warmed by the patience and humanity of the key characters who learn they have nothing to fear from each other. There is real grief. There is true joy.
Music by Stephen Trask, with superb musicians, is at one with this amazing film, and, I have no doubt that the perfection of this film could not have been achieved without this sensitive soundtrack.
It is a viewer failure to cast any of the characters as other than fully open to life and living and each other, and I have seen that reference made to 'Joe'. 'Joe' was, and would never be, lonely, nor would 'Cleo', nor any of them because they were genuine. Thank you, Tom McCarthy.
The Four Seasons (1981)
Megalomaniac Alda's 'Jack's faux temper tantrum says it all.
A low rating for a film I have watched a hundred times and continue to watch. Why? I love Vivaldi's 'The Four Seasons'' and the cinematography, set design, set decoration, properties, location, casting, choices, costuming, makeup/ hair. Are perfection.
I hope that Alda, in real life, is not the self-centered megalomaniac he is in this film. (And why on earth am I being told, "Sorry your review is too short," because I pause to formulate words? So painfully annoying. PS I'm GOING to write more; give me a second, will ya? - And, blast it, even though I have now written the minimum, I'm still under "red alert." Good grief).
But back to the heading: 'Jack's temper tantrum is so deliberate, so studied, so false, how else can one view Alda himself? He has the tantrum in order to prove he can "get angry." Everything is all about 'Jack' in this film, and...Alda.
Another film featuring Alda, that I own and would love to watch again for the excellent script and Ellen Burstyn is 'Same Time Next Year'. Can't watch it. It's "all about" Alda's character. Well, he didn't write or direct it, so, what IS it about Alda anyway? (I had deleted my last rant about Alda and 'The Four Seasons'. Maybe IMBD will save me the trouble with this one.
One more note: More than a few User Reviewers describe Bess Armstrong, and her character, presumably, as "hot." I think it's insulting and markedly adolescent to do so. What 'she is in this film is fresh, healthy, optimistic, and the only one of the bunch with a heart. It is so sophomoric guys - I presume it is "guys" who can't look beyond their pants to see that, and that Armstrong plays the character to perfection.
And I also see no mention of the other defining moment of the film that so well illustrates the coldness, arrogance and shallowness of the main characters, (save for Sandy Dennis' 'Anne)" when 'Ginny' resuscitates 'Danny', saving him from death, no one thanks her. No one. Not even her husband. I'm betting that that marriage lasted another 6 months if that, as 'Ginny' was nobody's fool. Everyone else certainly was.
Northern Exposure: Democracy in America (1992)
The worst episode of the entire series.
Maybe the writers were getting fed up with writing when they strained out this episode, but I think the actors must have hated it as much as I do. It offers nothing. (Okay. There is one saving grace, but it is so quick that Maurice's epiphany is almost lost). Even the music is bad - although I do not own this on VHS, but have the DVD, but the DVD transfer (with the substituted music - cheap bastids unwillings to pay ASCAP/BMI fees), has, of all things the Shaker song, 'Simple Gifts' as part of the polling place sequence.
It is as though the writers, *yes, you, Mr. Brand, et al), used their original conceptual character draft and stuck solely to those brief outlines of "type."
I find it hard to believe that the creators of 'Northern Exposure', wrote other than from some "cosmic=level" force, because the conceptualization and execution of this series seems to be so far above what the human imagination can conceive, and then put into action, is astonishing. (I know that when I paint, for example, it is not "of" me).
Not to sound like 'Chris', (who, starting with this episode becomes unbeatably prominent), but I've listened to the interviews with the writers and cannot believe otherwise; there isn't the remotest suggestion that these are people you would even want to have coffee with.
The episode is flat. It is annoying. It should have stayed in the can until the writers felt they could do justice to the theme.
Lewis (2006)
Music review for the entire series.
Cannot entirely fault Barrington Pheloung, as the higher-ups allowed the composition to play incessantly in every episode. Not only is it monotonous - the music and the scenes only fit as walkaround music, but it isn't. It is incessant, and utterly mismatched. At best. It should only have been introductory music. It negatively impacts the entire series. And, if episodes are watched in succession, plan on "earworm" for days.
Lewis: Life Born of Fire (2008)
Bad call for writers-directors to make 'Hathaway' unforgiveable.
'Life Born of Fire' is an intriguing episode. But 'Hathaway's' deception and heinous fault are unforgiveable. Were they planning on writing Lawrence Fox off the show? And, as much as I like Lawrence's portray of 'Hathaway', his acting in the crucial scene is horrendous. Did the director demand this temper tantrum excuse-giving scene?
I cannot believe that 'Lewis' character would have forgiven him for, in fact, being causal in his friend's suicide. And worse: 'Hathaway' seems to believe that, having confessed, he is free and clear of his rightful guilt and responsibility, making him despicable, and with all too much religious forgiveness. Sure. Just confess. You will be forgiven. No.
Mystery Men (1999)
One big negative: skunk humping hero's leg. Why? Why? Why?
At least between 1 AM and 2 AM this morning, stopping the movie, to do things in the kitchen, turning on the radio, getting BBC World News whose broadcasters' names I can never understand - maybe a fluke, but the BBC World News sounded like an extension of Mystery Men. It cracked me up so much I teared up. (An no. No substances were involved).
Certainly, the 'Blue Raj' had something to do with the utter mirth from the interweaving of these two "shows." But it was far more than that. The current BBC World News host, who replaced the excellent one, is just plain funny. This is not a good trait in a BBC World News program host, but perfection when he became part of the script of 'Mystery Men'. At least tonight, the news segments were so indecipherable in presentation, and whatever the news was, so odd - well, I refired the computer to write this.
'Mystery Men', with the exception - oh how I hate this action - the skunk humping the leg - any animal humping a leg, or, as in - what's the name of that movie with Billy Crystal - the dog's nose in the crotch action - does anyone truly "enjoy" that kind of crap? I don't think so. Audiences may laugh, but they're covering up being grossed out = 'Mystery Men'is a gas.
What can I say? I got lucky.
Picture Perfect (1995)
I'll be darned. This is a perfect movie.
There is not one bit of it that could be better. Not one actor could have been better. This was, yet again, a movie that had landed in the house, and I only just watched it, (a VHS tape), tonight, after it sat here for at least two years.
All the characters were faultless. The script was faultless. Direction? Faultless. I have never been a fan of movies focused on children, not since childhood, (and with a couple exceptions), but again - faultless, and engaging, smart, and, ultimately, surprising. Thank you.
Showtime (2002)
I think I figured something out about De Niro: Steering wheel phobia.
I can think of only one movie, (and they're all old ones), where the actor clearly had no clue about driving. But in 'Showtime', De Niro beats that bad performance. For an actor who is reputed to be able to transform himself, I swear he seemed terrified of the steering wheel of the vehicles he (could not have) driven in this movie. I mean, he couldn't even "act" as though he were driving. Yep. I think he has a phobia about driving so great that just seeing a steering wheel paralyzes him. It is bizarre.
I detested the first minutes of the movie which largely focused on Eddie Murphy's character, 'Trey', and I didn't think I could stand to watch the rest of the film because 'Trey' put 'Mitch' and other (clearly police officers), into danger. That isn't funny. I wasn't sure whether 'Trey' was a real cop, or if he was posing as one.
But given the mood I've been in today, I kept the film on, (again, one of those VHS tapes that mysteriously show up in the house), and it made me laugh.
Now the 6 star rating I gave the movie may be a gratitude rating, due to the latter effect. I had read the low-rating comments, (when I had stopped the movie early on, unsure whether to continue watching it), and figured, well, if it's that bad - what the heck. It can't be worse than the garbage I'm experiencing in real life this week. The low-rating people are probably right, but isn't it so often a case of the right movie at the right time, and vice versa? (And any movie is better than any 'review' I could ever write of one, anyway).
Other than the absurdity of the De Niro steering wheel-phobia-paralysis, the scene at the gun show where the "big idea" was to have 'Chase', (Rene Russo), make the announcement she did, in order to capture the villain, was so utterly moronic, that "spoof" would be insulted. Moronic. Endangering all present. Same with street scenes where, clearly, there was collateral damage during the chase scenes that had to result in many death of bystanders. No thanks.
Eddie Murphy's 'Trey' (mostly), pulled himself out of wretchedness of the first part of the movie, and that was a relief. De Niro's "gave" nothing. William Shatner, even in his brief appearances, gave the film more soul than any of the other actors combined. (He was fabulous). But the film provided enough comic relief to keep it from the 3 rating it probably deserves.
Shall We Dance? (2004)
The supporting cast was great/ The extras were great.
Why is Susan Sarandon considered a star? (I can't stand her in anything I have seen that she has done). Why didn't John, (Richard Gere), get on the L and make connections at O'Hare to get as far away from his ice wife, and his obnoxious, clueless teenage daughter? (Who destroys her father's, (and his dance partner's success, because she was so ill-bred she yelled out as though she were at a basketball game).
I can give Jennifer Lopez a pass on negative criticism because she never acts as though she believes she can act, and is, at the very least, not annoying in anything I have seen her in.
Anita Gillette as 'Miss Mitzi' was fun, comedic, and, in spite of the Director, sold me that she really cared about dancing and teaching.
Caitlynn Taczynski, as the young Paulina, (and, apparently, her only film credit), gave a thousand percent better performance than Sarandon or Lopez.
Bobby Cannavale's, 'Joe', in The Station Agent, who portrayed a person who I think must have been the best, warmest, kindest. Most nonjudgmental human being on the planet, managed to make contact in his performance in the movie under discussion.
Omar Benson Miller, as 'Vern', could also not be suppressed in this film; his acting is excellent. Lisa Ann Walter as, 'Bobbie', played the tough/kind, dedicated broad as it should be played. And it seems that I am a dedicated fan of Richard Jenkins.
(Oh..mygawd. Did you look at the full cast list? Since when do non-speaking actors get credit. I mean, I can understand giving the drivers credit, but every single person, it seems, who was somewhere in this movie?)
And, you've got to figure the director, Peter Chelsom, is one of the worst in the business if he can ruin Stanley Tucci. He should stick to acting.
As to Richard Gere, I still want to know if he ever went to one of the dances at the Holiday Bowl when he was in high school, and, in terms of this movie, he should have gone bowling, given the script and the direction.
Dead of Winter (1987)
The true horror of the film is that the police believe the insane psychiatrist, and not the very sane, (until this), female protagonist.
And I have no doubt that she would be tried and convicted for three murders, and that her husband did not believe she was other than insane, and committed them. In the last scene, Kate is clearly in shock. She may well not recover from what has transpired. But the fact is, there are three dead bodies to account for, and someone is going to have to take the fall. Does anyone think it won't be Kate?
I was fully prepared not to examine the movie at all, and attend more to the skills of the actors, and the set design and props. BUT then, opening with that absurd minus 40 degrees, in what is supported to be upstate New York - anywhere in upstate New York - and presented as if that was the norm, (which it never would be), and immediately following this idiotic weather report, the viewer is presented with Kate's husband, clearly a useless, and somewhat aberrant dreg of human, and her equally bland dreg of a brother. To begin a viewing with weather absurdity, plus two out of three characters that should turn most any viewer off, is quite the puzzle, as much as the latter would explain why, even though all signs were against Kate going for the "audition," who wouldn't, just to get away from these jerks and her situation, thinking "Anything must be better than this." And yes. Kate will be prosecuted and convicted, but might get a lighter life sentence in a hospital for the as criminally insane. Viewers can bet on it.
Superb acting, filming, set design, set dressing, makeup and costuming.
Miss Marple: At Bertram's Hotel (1987)
A complaint to Director Mary McMurray in this otherwise wonderful film.
Mary McMurray - Why on earth did you have Bess laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh - after biting into the pastry. It drives me insane. It really negatively affects my oft-desire to watch it, but I do so for the incredibly wonderful production values - the sets and art direction. Bess Sedgwick has nothing more to laugh at after the first bite of delight. Her face isn't shown having a thought that makes her laugh again, and no pastry is that funny. It was incredibly odd, and, given that you have a Facebook account, I was as close as I've ever come to joining just to ask this question, but wisely decided against doing so.
Also - another problem with the film is the ending. Why on earth did Bertram's Hotel need to close? It makes me ill that it does, and, it makes no sense. Really fouls things for me. And why was it that it sounded as though even the beautiful building would be torn down. Like wiping out all "evil?" Those were just burgalaries - who cares? The pastries.. the service.. the wallpaper.. the beautiful woods and upholstery = there was no need for its destruction. Cruel.
Woman on Top (2000)
Another movie written by, and directed by women who hate women.
The message of this hideous film is that women belong on the bottom, should stay on the bottom, and, if they dare attempt independence, two things will happen: they will be pursued by the schmuck(s) they had rid themselves of, and who they supported, with only sex in return, and, women cannot be on top, period - they MUST have a machismo, ignorant, schmuck of a man. You may read this and think - "Oh. Another one, writing because of events of recent years." That's not the case. That anyone would like this movie, for any reason, is simply unbelievable. When you see jerk-boy have the balls to show up and intrude on the - please beat me - 'Isabella's live tv show, (and with his band, whom he can never make a move without), you'll understand just how big a schmuck he is. He cares not for 'Isabella'. She is his meal ticket, as much as she is his whipping girl.
Writer Vera Blasi did the same thing in 'Tortilla Soup'. (With perhaps the worst of it being that the father sold the most beautiful home, with the most beautiful landscaping, and the exactly perfect kitchen). What is wrong with her? What is wrong with Fina Torres? What is wrong with the various hotshot entities that give them accolades? The latter are sanctioning this garbage.
The only reason I rewatched this movie, a VHS tape I had purchased, was because I thought it would, in fact, focus far more on food, and a natural-born female chef, and whatever relationships that formed would be equitable - not worse - yes worse - than 99.9% of 1950s television shows. It is humiliating for everyone, with one exception, and this is the sole reason I rewatched it - Harold Perrineau's portrayal of 'Monica Jones'. The remaining question is whether I finally send this tape to the incinerator, or can tolerate all else in order to see Perrineau play her. (Now, how is it that Torres and Blasi were able to give a kindly, supportive character of the transvestite, 'Monica'?)
I think incineration is the only step to take, as much as I will miss the only character in the movie worth watching.
The Wedding Planner (2001)
Alex Rocco (D), makes my skin crawl in any movie he is in.
If it weren't for Alex Rocco, I could enjoy this movie, although why, the director, or the actress herself, so overplayed Joanna Gleason's character, that I wanted to slap her - and I like Gleason's acting. But Alex Rocco. In this movie, he is as gross and nauseating as he is in any of the movies I have seen where he is cast. Add to that, his "accent" is spoken as though he was both severely mentally challenged - and I' would rather say, "retarded," as to say he was mentally challenged is an insult to anyone who actually is - and - the nauseating scene when he is measuring his daughter while she is sleeping - as though she was deceased, and as if he were an undertaker? So very gross.
Then, there is the problem that
PS Dear IMDB: Please fix the red alert, "Sorry your review is too short..." which appears immediately upon starting to type. And, for pete's sake - fix it that if you click on a User Review to to vote on it, and you have not signed in - after you sign in, please bring users at least back to the Comments page. Instead, you get a different screen entirely, and have to go back to the Comments page, and refresh so that it will see that you have signed in. Thank you. (I would have sent this via a Contact - but there isn't one).'Mary' could easily have, and should have, explained, immediately, that she had NOT consented to marry.'Massimo'. The plot could have continued without making 'Mary' seem like an idiot.
Yes, Alex Rocco -no matter the film, even before he opens his mouth - gross.
Back to the Future (1985)
Zemeckis, Gale and Spielberg should have hired an on-set shrink.
It was gross in 1985. It remains gross. The hypersexualized 1955, future mother of 'Marty and the near-incestual relationship, (which 'Marty' would not have been able to forget when he returned to 1984 - and I don't say this because of current awareness - it was gross in 1985). The deeply troubled present, and past father of 'Marty' and the extremely arrogant, successful man he becomes - all worthy of disgust. (Even 'Marty' would have to be disgusted by this transformation).
The script is among the worst in film history, with pandering carried to the maximum - and, shamefully targeted to a younger audience that should never have seen it, and the direction that made the incestuous advances disgusting...why did the writers and the director deliberately write such a thing when the concept and mechanicals, and actors could have made a fine, enjoyable film. In other words, who were Zemeckis, Gale, and Spielberg giving the finger to?
This is a bad, gross film that should never have seen a theater.
The Ten Commandments (1956)
I credit this film with making me anti-religion...at age 7.
When, as a child, you see the destruction and murder in the name of "religion," that is a good outcome. When you know at age 7 what an eclipse, and various plagues, and natural occurrences signify in terms of science, and even understanding that in so-called "biblical" times, that the masses did not think "science first," (and as persists in the current Common Era), but pagan gods and other supernatural beings, this film is a romp through insanity, as must be the original 'actual' biblical writings.
'Moses' i the the film, is clearly dangerously psychotic. I knew that at age 7. Need I say I wasn't the most beloved kid in parochial school.
The film is spectacular spectacle of course. In these Common Era days of high technology, give me a fake rock fashioned by the properties and art department personnel, over all the digital, FX, computerized garbage that the general public laps up as if it were gold.
Yup. I can definitely credit this film with keeping me on the right path of science over superstition - knowledge over ignorance. Thank you, Mr. DeMille.
'
The Devil Wears Prada (2006)
Unbearable. I can no longer feign any excuse to rewatch this movie. Deep-sixing it.
'Andrea' 'Andy' is, after all, as arrogant and ignorant as her scummy boyfriend, and all but one of her pseudo-friends. She pretends she's a "journalist," and yet, she does not even take the time to research what 'Runway' is, who is in charge, nor anything about the place where she is seeking employment. And, if you lived in Nome, let alone NYC, you would know that you do not eat a bagel, with or without a shmear, prior to an interview. It sticks in your teeth. I detest 'Andy'. Why did the scriptwriter, and casting director, give us a lead that an audience would be happy to see vanish entirely? Prediction: 'Andy' is quickly and summarily fired from the job she takes at the end of the film. Refusing to acknowledge that she is an arrogant, no-talent nothing, she continues to try to force herself on other employers. Eventually, she has to be rescued by her parents, (she DOES have them?), and she lives at home until she passes away, narrowly outliving her parents who kept her fed, clothed, and with a roof over her head. The scum boyfriend had moved in, too. Once a month, he spends all the available money, including the parents money, on tremendously expensive cheese and bread and then treats them to burnt-to-a-crisp grilled cheese sandwiches. And, at least once a month, the fire department has to come to remove smoke from the house.
This could have been a good, fun film. Why did they have to destroy it.
Them! (1954)
Outstanding film, without the usual romantic angle.
It is such a relief to see a science fiction film that has no romantic angle. It's an excellent story, and the non-computerized visual effects are stupendous. What stands out is the absence of a frank love interest, and Joan Weldon's character, Dr. Patricia Medford, is always referred to by her father, (Edmund Gwenn), Dr. Harold Medford, as "Doctor," as is true with most all other characters. That never happens. There are only 2 very brief scenes where James Arness' character makes a
"typical" comment. But Dr. Medford doesn't react; how sublime. And only one scene where Dr. Patricia Medford - early on, where she is wearing a tight-fitting suit with pencil skirt, and heels, although low, and clambering around on/in the desert sand, rocks, and cacti. Which makes you cringe.
The acting is excellent. The sets, special effects, sound - all excellent, and the ending doesn't end with an embrace. Which. Again, is good because Dr. Medford knows too many big words for James Arness' FBI character to tolerate.