Reviews

In Manhattan Murder Mystery , Woodrow Allen (auteur) tries to re-make Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window. Unfortunately Woody is no Hitchcock. Despite a charming cast, and some good, often funny dialogue Mr . Allen's direction gets in the way. He's too busy being cleaver with the camera peering over flower plots. A particularly teeth grinding example is when Woody and Diane Keaton's characters discuss the possible murder of the wife. They walk around the entire circumference of a fountain. Dialogue is heard, but for a good half of the scene neither main character is on camera. There is no other major or minor director who would have filmed a scene like this without either character in view. I don't just want to hear dialogue . I want to see the people in the scene who are portraying the characters I am supposedly interested in. So much of Allen's direction is about look how cleaver I am at the expense of seeing a performance with actors. It drove me nuts. Too bad because I think there is a funny movie hidden behind that statue in the middle of a fountain we're forced to watch. And don't tell me it's some kind of Bergman like symbolism. t

1. Beautiful scenery 2. Girls in mini skirts 3. Suzanne Pleashette. Otherwise not funny. Ian McShane is annoying and unattractive . The rest of tourists are a bunch of whiny twits.

Gone to Earth is an overlooked classic by Powell and Pressburger. The cinemaphotography as usual is as good as ever. Jennifer Jones has never looked more beautiful than she does here and she gives an excellent touching performance. In fact the entire cast are memorable particularly a very young looking Hugh Griffith as a comic manservant.

The underwater photography is excellent. Acting and cast are good. But a confusing plot and villains popping out of nowhere sink this underwater adventure.

I've always admired Olivier and thought him one of the great actors in films. Then I see a movie like That Hamilton Woman or Rebecca or Fire Over England and it reminds that as a romantic lead Larry was rather dull. Other than his steadfast bearing his Lord Nelson displays nothing of the panache or strength that the real Nelson most have had. That leaves Vivien Leigh. At the height of her extraordinary beauty and coming off her best actress Oscar for Gone the Wind. She is nothing less than compelling and gives a magnetic believable performance. As for the rest of the movie it's pretty stage bound and stiff considering the momentous period in history it covers. Watch it for Vivien Leigh in her prime but don't expect much else.

The premise of the World of Henry Orient and it's satire of fan worship gone amok is a good one. Throw in a little paranoia and some psychoanalysis humour and this could have been great. Unfortunately there just isn't enough (in his prime no less) Peter Sellers in the title role of a mediocre but gloriously vain concert pianist. Too much emphasis of the film is dominated by his teenage girl worshippers who are frankly not that interesting and quickly becoming annoying. Too bad, because the rest of the cast are great. Including one of my favourite comedic actresses Paula Prentiss and a sexy dominatrix style Angela Lansbury. Tom Bosley is also on board as well Richie's father from Happy Days. Not bad but disappointing.

From the opening Orson Welles' narration. There's never a dull moment in this classic. Great cast all in their prime. Plus some of the best technicolor photography (Jack Cardiff) of the 1950s. The Vikings looks as if it was filmed today. I will say this movie is more geared to a male audience than a female one. Great film for a father to watch with his son(s).

Director Carol Reed does an excellent job of brilliantly using the backdrop of a real Paris circus ( Cirque D'Hiver). The trapeze sequences, except for a couple of typically bad 50s era backscreens, are excellent. However the script is a cliché ridden love triangle that has been used over and over in Hollywood films since the silent era. This , and some uneven supporting cast performances weaken what would have been an even better film.

While Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid has certain charms. It is totally lacking in depth. The characters wise crack like Hope and Crosby in a road movie. There is tons of filler like the middle sepia sequence with the trio in NYC. and then on the train to Bolivia. Plus speaking of trio what's up with the one woman two men friendship? Wouldn't Newman at some point get jealous?. And that terrible dabba dabba da soundtrack during the endless chase sequence in Bolivia. Basically,we are cheering for bank robbers and killers just because its Newman and Redford. On the plus side the movie looks great , it has the realistic feel of the 1880s , despite the dialogue and there is a chemistry between Newman and Redford that keeps it entertaining at least until Bolivia.

I'm a big Hitchcock fan everything from "Blackmail 1929 to Frenzy 1972. The Trouble with Harry is by far his worst movie. Dull doesn't begin to describe the hollow, cringe worthy clunking amateurish quality of this film. Its as if Hitch had forgotten everything he had learned from making movies in the U.S. for the last 16 years. He has gone back to making one of his less than successful British clunkers from the early 30's. The characters are life less ,forced, the plot a one note joke. Just how long has Edmund Gwynne been napping by that log? Please avoid this movie unless you need to confirm that even a cinematic master could screw up now and again.

Because of the low-budget look and no-name cast except Mitchum. This is an overlooked B budget classic. I found the acting to be on the whole very good. Robert's son ,Jim Mitchum has the same physical presence of his father. All he is lacking is the sneer. The brutality of the moonshine business. The danger the shiners faced and how they were viewed as dare devil heroes. The story gives us a vivid picture of all the aspects of what it was to be a moon shiner in the south. The feds are the opposite side of the coin to the mob wanting to muscle in on the business. Feds using tactics almost as nasty as the mob allows us to sympathise with rebel putting it to the man. Mitchum is perfectly cast as the ultimate non-conformist but one who realizes what is he is doing has a short shelf life.Knowing this he discourages others particularly his "brother" (Jim Mitchum) from getting involved in the business. The principles are all excellent and some of moonshiners look like the genuine article. The "Whooperwhill" sung at the credits by Keely Smith is appropriatley haunting.

I've attempted to watch this "Oscar winner" a number of times and have not gotten through the entire movie. This is a mess! Dialogue undecipherable, no plot, little in the way of characterization. It is a series of pointless scenes leading to nothing. I will say that it foreshadows a great deal of pointless,mindless, noisy, messy drug addled swinging 60's films that followed it. I refer to "Casino Royale", the last part of "What's New Pussycat" and "Rowan and Martins Laugh-in." I suppose at the time it seemed revolutionary and rebellious. But like many a sixties extravagance, it now appears to be nothing but self-indulgent senseless garbage. Oh, and why was Molly hanging out in the woods?

As is the case with most all-star movies this is extremely disappointing. Unlike others who disliked it though, I thought Finney was the best actor in the movie.I loved his fastidious,darting , suspicious, but always composed Poirot. Others who fared well - Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergmen, and Sean Connery. Was Vanessa Redgrave in this movie? What a waste of a powerhouse talent. All she seems to do is smile lovingly at Connery. Most of the rest of the cast seemed stagey and forced. And above all else everyone acted suspicious right from the beginning so once it was revealed that they all had a connection to the child kidnapping story shown at the beginning . It was pretty obvious to figure out the obvious. That everyone was somehow guilty. I knew that within about the first 2O minutes and I'm not that smart . It's just that the movie is that bad.

I'm giving it a generous 1. Haven't seen a truly good Woody Allen movie since Husband and Wives. Matchpoint was good until the final third of the movie when it went completely off the rails. This time at least the movie goes off the rails right at the beginning so I didn't have to waste so much time before turning it off. As other reviewers have said what is about the main character in an Allen film that compels them to act like Woody Allen. Is his personality that forceful? Why couldn't Owen Wilson just be Owen Wilson . He's a funny guy . But Owen Wilson pretending to be Woody Allen pretending to be some hack asking a pretend Hemingway to show a pretend G.Stein his work. Wow that was when I called it quits. Speaking of calling it quits that's what Woody Allen should do. He's become a sandwich maker rather than a film-maker putting out the same peanut butter and jam crap year after year after year. Pathetic.

A film of noble aims and perfect execution. Jane Wyman is beautiful profound, and perfect, in her portrayal of a lonely widow dealing with the loss of a husband, and the emergence of a new love. Although Rock Hudson is limited, he conveys the image of a wild and free rebel. Determined to go his own way no matter what society says. An opinion which would gain more relevance in the 60's and early 70's before becoming a fashion statement and ..alas.. finally irrelevant. "All that Heaven Allows" is way ahead of its time. Perhaps it should take a German like Douglas Sirk to reflect the underlying narrow thinking that is the heart of the 1950's mind set and dominated the culture of the 50's and continues to dominate our culture today,.It's not so much a critique of conservative small town values as it is a confrontation of the conformity that continues to exist today in 2012.