Reviews

I say surprisingly for two reasons. First, the print showing on Amazon Prime was in such horrible condition that it was a challenge just watching the film...so it really did catch my attention. Second, because this was a bit of a departure for Ralph Bellamy...a very different character for him.

However, this film seemed just...well, like a studio throw-away. It could have been much better. For example, Anne Baxter's character's fear of birds. Not sure we could really understand the basis for that...that part of the script was handled badly. Ralph Bellamy as a painter (presumably for ads)...didn't seem quite right...like a mistaken context for a suspected affair with another woman (neither the Baxter character or his wife). And how the fiancé of Baxter's just agrees to disappear from the home for no good reason. Rather bizarre. And the final scene...too cheap to make it more dramatic (not to mention how cheap the sets appeared to be). In fact, maybe that was the problem with the film -- the budget for this film in 1944 was "over a million"? Hard to believe. And speaking of hard to believe...why did most of the characters take so long to see what the Baxter character was up to?

Nevertheless, this was a bit entertaining. It didn't hurt at all to see Percy Kilbride and Margaret Hamilton as the hired help! And I always found Aline MacMahon a plus in any film.

If you like old movies, try it on for size. It may not be a strong movie, but it is still a bit interesting to watch...once.

This was one of the most difficult movies for me to watch...ever. I'm 75 and I used to be a teacher and then a principal. So this film really hit home.

Of course it was a real joy to see Maureen O'Hara...such a distinctive actress who aged beautifully. I'm not very familiar with Eric Stoltz, but he did very well here as the former student who is reunited with his old Latin teacher.

The first half of the movie was slow at times, and it's a bit depressing as you move closer to the end...which will be the end of the main character. But I know how she felt, as I have had a former student (and his wife and son) who is now over 40 year old come back into my life.

The film is nicely done. Although it is not a film for everyone.

I am a fan of the 1945 film version of this story, which starred Robert Young and Dorothy McGuire. That version had some enchantment to it. Which is the whole purpose of the story -- what seemed like doomed people in a doomed situation finding love due to the enchantment of their relationship in an almost magical setting.

This 2016 version is the worst remake of any film I have ever seen. And I have changed my mind about remakes. I used to feel that, in most cases, remakes were a bad idea. But after watching quite a few British remakes in more recent years, I have come to appreciate remakes as almost a competition to see which version is most satisfying. Some hit the mark, others don't. But it's often quite interesting.

But this remake? There is NOTHING in this film that I found admirable. Let's start with the actors. The first question is...WHO??? I hope I never see another film with Paul Masterson. Pretty much a flat performance. Perhaps capable of minor supporting roles. And, at least based on this film, I would have to say the same for the female lead -- Sarah Navratil. I might giver her a chance in something else...but here...terrible, flat performance.

And then there's the pathetic script. I can only presume that the screen writers simply didn't understand the concept of this story, and that the directors fumbled around with no imagination or any concept of romance.

That I paid a few a few dollars to watch this on Amazon Prime...boy, did I waste that money!

Take my advice...skip this and seek out the magic of the 1945 version.

I do have to state up front that I have long believed that Spencer Tracy was the quintessential 'great American actor' (well, actually #2 after Cary Grant). And Tracy's performance in the 1960 version of this story was, literally, a tour de force. And in fact, Fredrick March's performance in the 1960 version could also be noted as a tour de force.

So it was with trepidation that I bought the Blu Ray version of the 1999 version.

I do have to give both Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott credit. Lemmon died less than two years later; Scott within months of making this film. Scott, in particular, was frail here...not movie frail...real life frail. So for both of them, the energy that you see with Tracy and March is mostly absent in the Scott-Lemmon version. I couldn't help but think (with my geology background) that Spencer Tracy as Henry Drummond that we were watching a human volcano with some of the courtroom scenes; with Lemmon it was more of a sputtering mudpot at Yellowstone. That's not to say Lemmon and Scott weren't good. They did "fine". But they were not a tour de force.

In terms of the rest of the cast, for the newer version, I have credit to Beau Bridges who was much better in his role than Gene Kelly was in the earlier version; Bridges is a sadly underrated actor. Lane Smith in the newer version was better than Claude Akins in the old version. Piper Laurie (new version) could not compare to Florence Eldridge (old version) as Matthew Brady's wife. But the actors who played the teacher and his girl friend were much better in the new version than those in the old version.

So to a degree, for many aspects of the films, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. EXCEPT for the two key actors. Tracy and March hands down, and yet Lemmon and Scott were good. Great versus good.

I'm still glad I purchased the Blu Ray of the newer version; it was worth watching.

Yes, this series is very entertaining. However, there are some 'buts'.

But, the music soundtrack stinks, is distracting, doesn't fit at all in with the story line, and sometimes made me wonder if I should just turn the limited series off. However, it is an entertaining story.

But, this isn't just a case of taking liberties with actual history. This is literally -- as they admit at the beginning of the series -- changing history. I would have preferred a totally fictional approach to the story, rather than literally rewriting history.

But, once you get into about episode 6, you begin to feel certain elements of the story are getting a bit repetitive. I wondered...did they really need 8 episodes to tell the story? I think not.

However, again, I have to admit it's an entertaining series, and the acting performances are quite good all around. I particularly liked the actress who played Lady Jane -- Emily Bader.

...it held my attention for the full 105 minutes.

And why was it able to hold my attention for that long? Because its star (and writer and director) Julio Torres is so engaging. Instant sympathy for his cause as an honest and innocent El Salvadorian is trying his best to qualify for staying in the United States. So that was a big plus.

I know thatTilda Swinton's role was supposed to be weird...but for me it was way too weird. Too over the top. All the time. Every minute she's on screen. It almost ruined the film for me because it was simply too unbelievable. May I never see her in another film!

The later scenes in the apartment where Torres' character has a room...or sometimes only a couch...are also over the top.

The story itself is rather engaging. I'd have enjoyed it a lot more if it was as much a drama as it pretended to be.

But, I will have to pay attention to Julio Torres...although his standup is too quirky for me to enjoy much.

...and that's the delightful Barnard Hughes. He was one of my favorite character actors in the 1970s era, and he's always a gem.

However, that doesn't eclipse the horrible decision to recreate Father Brown -- an iconic British character -- as an American. Shame, shame, shame.

But no need to worry -- the supporting actors here make this iteration of Father Brown something not worth even remembering. I remember Kay Lenz from those days, but I don't remember her acting being THIS bad. So very awkward. Also true for David Rasche. And Michael McGuire. Are these guys really professional actors?

And I can say the same thing for the script here. Amateur screen writers? Not really, but this story line seemed very slapped together...and not even well slapped together. And we know that Father Brown is supposed to be very clever, but the way they tie things together at the very end...horrible.

Again, if you like Barnard Hughes...okay. Otherwise, simply stay away from this one.

...but I have been (mostly) enjoying some of the Robert Mitchum films that I had never seen, and this popped up on TCM. This film strikes me as one of those projects that perhaps looked fairly good on paper, but didn't translate well to the silver screen.

The one thing that is somewhat notable here is the cast of second bananas...more than you will see in most films. The venerable Edgar Buchannan. The lethargic Arthur Hunnicutt. The laconic Wallace Ford. The always buffoonary of Raymond Walburn. Dabbs Greer, who got so much better over the years. And child actor Jimmy Hunt. All did well here. Much better, in fact, than did Robert Mitchum. It isn't that I always want Mitchum to be a bad boy/guy type, but this was way too lightweight. Jean Simmons was actually quite here...in some ways reminding me of Audrey Hepburn. But the script was beneath her.

And that's the real problem -- a very weak script. Lloyd Bacon was the director here...not exactly one of Hollywood's superstars, although he did direct "Brother Orchid" with Edward G. Robinson, as well as "Knute Rockne, All American". The screen writers here were lightweight, too. And it shows.

This was a clear disappointment in the career of Robert Mitchum. And he knew it...he went on suspension to try to avoid appearing in it. Hint, hint, hint.

This film has a few things going for it. It's beautifully filmed. Rich settings. A couple of very good actors. And yet it sorta falls flat. Sorta like a dish of pasta with no Italian seasoning or red pepper. I sat there the whole time thinking that there's something I'm missing. And I finally came to the conclusion that what was missing was actual drama.

Kelsey Grammer is fine here, alhtough I can't say it was a very challenging role for him. Nathalie Cox is sort of bland, although I sense some potential there. The rest of the actors are somewhere between ho hum and 'okay'.

The story is certainly nothing new...someone using made up ghosts (which they never really get into) to scare somebody else into submission, and when that goes awry they have to resort to potentially murder.

Several people have mentioned that it reminded them of a Hallmark movie. Well...sorta...I guess you could say that "lite". It was okay for 90 minutes...just once...never again.

As I was watching this film I stopped at one point to see how much time was left. So little that I presumed that something had malfunctioned and the DVR had cut off the film before finishing. But nope...at just 70 minutes this was one film where I wanted more! There should have been another whole chapter at a steamy trial. We wuz cheated! Another half hour or more could have been spent to wrap up the story.

And the odd thing about it is that I ususally don't care for Ava Gardner. Here, I liked her. Robert Mitchum is on my maybe-yes/maybe-no list. Here I liked him. The acting of both here was quite good. And I liked the setting -- New Orleans at the turn of the century. Melvyn Douglas didn't come off very well here...he was the 'bad guy', and he doesn't pay a price for murder...because the movie ends too soon. It's always nice seeing Lucile Watson, although here she's a secondary 'bad guy'; but she's so good.

If I had paid for a movie ticket at a theater I would have wanted my money back.

I've never been a fan of Brooke Shields...and I'm still not. But it was interesting to see her after what seemed like decades. Her look early in the film...someone should have rethought that.

On the other hand I've always enjoyed Benjamin Bratt, but haven't seen him in quite a long time. He's good here.

The young couple -- fine.

And that's pretty much a summary of this film...it's fine. Nothing special. Rather typical type of romcom. The Thai location here is pretty much wasted, and I have to admit that I couldn't help but think about this area being where the tidal wave a few years back hit.

It wanna just relax for a bit...this is okay. Deep it ain't.

For decades I pretty much ignored films starring Charles Boyer. Not sure why. Perhaps at some point years ago I saw one film by him that I just didn't like. Then a couple of years ago I watched a Bette Davis film where he was the male lead and decided I had to rethink Boyer as an actor. I've pretty much changed my mind about him. I rather enjoy his films. And I very much enjoyed his appearance on "What's My Line"; seemed like such a genuinely charming man.

So today I watched this film -- "Cluny Brown". I guess I just don't get it. I thought it was just about the dumbest movie I've ever watched. Yes, I know...it's satire. But what a waste of celluloid.

Don't get me wrong. Boyer is at his most charming. And Jennifer Jones -- whom is not a favorite of mine -- was quite fresh and appealing. And everyone else does rather nicely here. But I thought the plot was just plain dumb. I wanted to like it. But I didn't. Not at all.

I guess it must be me.

I've never been much of a fan of the Sherlock Holmes B flicks starring Basil Rathbone. This one isn't bad except for one horrible blunder at the end of the film when Holmes is...well, better not tell you...wait for it! But it sorta ruined the film for me. How could they possibly think they could by with that?

Rathbone is Rathbone here; not much more to say about that. Same for poor old Nigel Bruce as Watson...couldn't they have given a bit more credit on occasion than they did??? Lionel Atwill plays the ever evil Moriarty here; does he really die at the end? Probably not.

This is okay if you just want to watch Holmes one more time...but don't expect a lot.

It's rare that I watch Hallmark movies...sometimes the Christmas season's flicks are okay. But this one I watched because I love Niagara Falls, but haven't been there in over 20 years. And that leads to complaint #1...the scenic photography of the beautiful Niagara gorge was very poor...looked to me like cheap drones.

The plot? Well, nothing new here. Well, maybe that's not quite true. It begins with the premise that the young lead woman is to rigid in her life and gets dumped just 5 weeks before her wedding and planned honeymoon in Niagara Falls. But she goes anyway, but with her sister, instead of a husband. And, of course, meets someone she hates at first, but falls in love with. Okay. Not bad. A bit mundane.

Jocelyn Hudon was perky enough as the female lead. I wasn't very interested in Dan Jeannotte as the male lead. And Chris Violette...he's an actor? No thank you.

So no, overall, I can't recommend this.

I watched my first "The Saint" movie just the other night ("The Saint In Palm Springs"), and it wasn't very good. This film -- "The Saint Takes Over" was still a B movie, but a pretty decent effort. That's not to say it was an A movie plot, but it was interesting.

George Sanders was good here, as were the supporting characters, although none stood out. The plot had some clever devices in it, particularly the climax. It's interesting that Wendy Barrie played a different character in each of the several Saint films she appeared in. I thought she looked familiar!

If you need to pass some time, this is a decent distraction, and you'll recognize several of the supporting actors.

...and the plot is not one of them.

The first reason to watch this film in George Sanders. I always enjoy seeing Sanders on screen, even in a bad movie (and this is a pretty poor B movie). The second reason to watch is the supporting performance by Paul Guilfoyle as the fumbling house detective (or future inmate). Guilfoyle is a hoot here. The rest of the cast...nothing that will set the world (or the nitrate film) on fire.

As far as the plot...this is actually the first Saint film I ever watched. I thought the Saint was supposed to be clever. He bumbles his way through this film, perhaps tripping over plot holes; who wrote this feeble story line? In this film The Saint makes one amateurish goof after another.

I'm still glad I watched it...but it won't get a second viewing by me.

One of our reviewers here -- planktonrules -- entitled his review "I am the odd reviewer who did NOT love this film". You are not alone!

I will preface the rest of what I say with the caveat that I watched this film having never read the book. Maybe that makes a difference, but no screenwriter or director should assume that a viewer will have read the source book of a film they are working on. Perhaps my not having ever read the book is why I had difficulty finding a plot in this group of anecdotes, many out of sequence...terribly out of sequence. Si, I'm sorry Greta, but I found this film to be a terrible mess.

All, however, is not lost. The acting performances are. Overall, not bad. They range from excellent to passable. One of the American actresses I most admire for her many performances is Meryl Streep. Sorry, Meryl, you wasted your talents here. But the various young actresses who played the sisters here were very good.

The settings and wardrobes were excellent, along with fine cinematography.

But I kept wanting to give up on this film. Every 5 or 10 minutes I found myself wondering if I should just quit the film. Looking back...I wish I had.

...but let's all shed a tear for those poor, poor rich folks that inhabit a city of less than 1 square mile. Oh my...they might have had to become a part of France. Are you kidding me? On the world stage...this is NOTHING. And we're supposed to sit through 103 minutes of hand wringing by a former movie actress? Honestly, this film didn't need to be made. The story isn't even interesting.

That's not to say that Nicole Kidman doesn't do a fine job here. She's good in a rather bland role in a rather bland film.

Perhaps the best thing about the film is that it somewhat destroys the fantasy that Kelly lived a storybook romance as a fair princess.

Frankly, would the world have cared if Monaco had actually become a part of France...France which protects Monaco with its military.

Trust me...no matter how boring your life is, you have better things to do than watch this film. The events depicted here occurred in the same year...1962...as the Cuban Missile Crisis, which threatened to plunge the world into nuclear destruction. Now there's a ripe target.

I have to admit up front that I knew in advance that this series was not picked up for a second season. Nevertheless, I condemn the 'networks' involved for -- once again as all too often happens -- luring us into a production only to cancel the series, leaving us wondering how things turn out. Shame, shame, shame.

However, I'll give future viewers a piece of advice. As you near the end of episode 6, once two of the main characters see the Taj Mahal...stop watching. That way, you have a happy ending. Once you go beyond that to the last approximately 2-3 minutes, you are left on a distressing cliff-hanger only wanting more.

In my life I spent a great deal of time in Southeast Asia, particularly Thailand. I have always regretted not having spent at least one summer in India. And this drama made me feel that regret even stronger. The settings are stunning, and it is beautifully filmed.

The acting is top notch, too...although you'll likely not like (and that's putting it mildly) the mother. The Indian actors here are excellent.

One of the other reviewers complained about clichés. Heck, I can't remember the last movie I saw that wasn't filled with clichés making the end quite predictable. Usually a drama isn't about figuring out what the end is...it's more about how do they get to the end. And in that regard, this series is right up there.

In conclusion, don't pass this by because it was not renewed. Watch it for what we do have.

I have to preface my review by noting that I'm 74 years old.

And yet, I really enjoyed this movie. Partly because I am a retired teacher/principal, so I sometimes enjoy seeing flicks about school life today.

First off, the title character here is entertaining and the actor -- Tyler Dean Flores -- seems very talented. He can be funny, sweet, angry, threatening...and convincing so. There were times here he looked to old to be a high school student, and other times he looked just right. Hope to see more of him.

I did find several of the costars just a tad annoying, although Christian Vunipola was pretty decent, despite what appears to be a lack of experience. I kinda watched this film due to one supporting actor in it -- Raul Castillo -- who plays the father here, and does nicely, but it's a rather small (but important) part.

One of the things that was really entertaining here was that the script wasn't always serious, or always humorous...it mixed things up. Some of the martial arts scene were entertaining and quite good...but funny...which they were supposed to be. Well done.

"13 Reasons why" was an all-dramatic mini-series that was pretty serious all the time. This is much lighter and simply fun to watch.

Yes, this film is dumb. Let's see...to run away with another woman the doctor stages a fiery car crash with another man's body. Leaving the doctor with no way to earn a living. A divorce would have been so much simpler. Just plain dumb.

However, I always enjoy Ann Sheridan, and feel she was a very underrated actress. Not so sure this was a good movie for her...especially when you read some of the reviews of the time.

The surprise here was Kent Smith. One of those actors who you recognize him as being in movies you've seen, but not usually the leading man! He does nicely as the doctor here.

I know you may be thinking that you may not want to watch this film. But, oddly enough, it is a bit intriguing. Just not believable.

There are 3 supporting actors here that deserve mention. Bruce Bennett as the doctor's partner is nothing to brag about here. Robert Alda as a nightclub owner who's a decent man does nicely. Rosemary DeCamp, whom I usually enjoy seeing in supporting roles doesn't play a very loving wife here.

All in all, it's an okay film to watch once, although not necessarily for the right reasons.

I think that's the first time I've ever thought of using that word -- childish -- in summarizing the quality of a film. But as I sat watching this film, that word popped into my mind.

I have to admit, before going on, that I've never been particularly impressed with Pat O'Brien. Oh yes...an occasional role here and there...for example in 1940's "'Till We Meet Again"...pretty decent there. But mostly it always seemed as if he was just phoning it in...and that's the way I felt here.

It seems like a pretty weak cast to me. Adolphe Menjou seems very miscast here...but again, never a favorite of mine. Ellen Drew...who's Ellen Drew? Actually, she appeared in quite a few films, but I don't remember her at all. And of course, Rudy Vallee. Hmmmm. No great shakes as an actor, but he does 'okay' here.

As the film goes on, the plot just gets sillier and sillier. You might say that it sounds like a screwball comedy. It doesn't have the class of a screwball comedy. And some things that happen -- such as the husband (O'Brien) and Menjou walking around inside the house and never get caught...just inane.

But, I've seen worse pics. On occasion.

I have to say at the beginning that I had a feeling I wasn't going to like this movie. I had no idea how much I would dislike it. But I watched it through for one reason: I think that Kelvin Harrison, Jr. Is one of the finest young actors out there. If you haven't seen "Luce" or "Cheavlier", you need to. But in this film, even Harrison didn't shine. Yes, Peter Dinklage does very well here. And Hayley Bennett does well enough.

But to be honest with you, I think many of the songs in this semi-musical are awful, and often sung poorly. It made me year for the days when Hollywood would have singers do voice-overs so we didn't have to listen to our favorite stars actually sing.

It's a beautiful production in terms of sets and locales. But that's not really why I decided to watch this film.

As I said in the title of my review, no wonder it lost millions.

Most of us (at least from my generation) remember Vincent Price from his many horror films, the quality of which varied greatly, both in terms of scripts and acting, and often suffered from second-rate supporting actors. It isn't often we get to see Price in a top notch production. This, however, is one such film, and Price is really good here. Let's face it, he wasn't leading man material in the way we most often think of that. That's not to say this role isn't a bit gothic. There he is depressed, on drugs, and somewhat eerie. But this is a good script with a good story.

Gene Tierney is also excellent here, although I did have just a little trouble seeing the (then) 26 year old actress as a girl (at the beginning of the film). But, it's still a very good performance.

The supporting cast is somewhat notable, although none of them comes even close to stealing the show. Walter Huston was almost wasted as the overly-religious father; Glenn Langan plays the doctor, and I can't say that I've ever really noticed him in the other films; he's passable. I always find Anne Revere's supporting roles interesting, and she doesn't disappoint here. Spring Byington, usually a favorite of mine, doesn't have a very good role here. Harry Morgan is good here as a local farmer working under the patroon (Price). And this is an interesting film for Jessica Tandy as a crippled servant.

Despite my being from New York State myself, and a bit of an amateur history buff, I was somehow unaware of the patroon system in New York State, and I was greatly surprised that it didn't end until the mid-1800s. So there's an interesting historical context here.

A real negative for me in the film are the depictions of the Hudson Valley of New York State, an area I am relatively familiar with. They were off base in this film.

I'm not sure this is a film I'll want to go back and watch a second time, but it was good, and I'm glad to have seen it.

...but not by much.

First off, you have to be willing to accept Alan Ladd as the "bad guy". Certainly against type. And, you have to accept the idea that revenge is always worth it; there's plenty of revenge in this flick. And, to be honest, Ladd looks old and worn out here.

Second, it's one of those films where there isn't a single "good guy" to root for. Some might say, "Well, what about the townspeople?" Well, they're the ones that caused Ladd to want revenge.

The main supporting cast -- Don Murray as the drunk Confederate, Dan O'Herlihy as a cohort, Dolores Michaels as a bar girl who joins in on the revenge, and Barry Coe who plays a sharp shooter -- all do their jobs. But they're pretty unlikable. Murray's character is a hopeless drunk, who suddenly sobers up as a way to end the movie, and frankly that part of the plot is pretty ludicrous.

I can't recommend this.