Change Your Image
roark183
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againAs long as I am writing here, I would like to give tribute to the top performers.
The top male dancers are unquestionably Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor. It is their dancing that inspired this list.
The top female dancers are Cyd Charisse, Mitzi Gaynor, Ann Miller and Vera-Ellen. Eleanor Powell was widely recognized as the top female dancer in the 1930s, but her career wanned in the 1940s. She was never in a color film and did not dance in film after 1944. Her performances are missed, and missing, cannot be included in the top dancers in musicals. Would that she had continued.
Singing is not a factor that I would care to compare performers. There are just too many genres of singing and comparing one to another is beyond me. That said, I would say that Barbara Streisand's voice is truly commanding, and she could carry any musical into success. I would have to say that Streisand is singular in her singing. None of the other performers I have listed here, male or female, could match her commanding voice, and carry a film musical into success as she has alone. Other singers carried musicals together with other performers, but Streisand carried her musicals herself.
There were two musical production pairs that markedly produced more major musicals than any other teams. These four men did not always work together, and there were many great musicals produced by them individually. However, the teaming of Richard Rodgers with Oscar Hammerstein II and Alan J. Lerner with Frederick Loewe virtually marked the great musical era.
I find it difficult to compare the quality of acting between male and female actors. To me it's like apples and oranges. They're just different.
I try to limit my considerations here to the actors' performance on film, but I confess that an actor's performance off camera does occasionally affect my considerations for this list.
Science fiction is a realistic vision of what the future might bring by science and invention. The genre covers what might conceivably be possible, but does not yet exist. It might also offer an explanation for something that does exist at present, for which there is currently no scientific explanation, but a plausible one is offered.
Fantasy on the other hand encompasses scenes which have no basis in science and are not likely to exist in the future. Scenes of fantasy offer no explanation to how they occur. They are simply conceived out of the thin air. Things appear suddenly and possibly unexpectedly as they have no explanation how they happen or occur. Superman leans toward fantasy, as there is no explanation offered for his super human strength and abilities.
Really good science fiction offers a scientific explanation to how otherwise inexplicable things take place.
Some science fiction offers explanation for how or why things are the way they are as we know them today, yet offers no science behind the explanation. It's simply a plausible explanation.
Science fiction often includes time travel with no explanation how that time travel occurs. It may seem like fantasy, but it does explain things that occur in present time that have no other plausible explanation.
Much of what is offered as science fiction is simply wars being fought with futuristic equipment. They offer no science. The Star Trek series is an example. On the other hand there is some science offered in some of the Star Wars movies.
A major factor in any great story is intrigue. So the story must be intriguing.
Women need not feel slighted because I distinguish actresses from actors. One cannot compare one to the other. No actress may be compared to any actor and conversely no actor may be compared to any actress. This list is just actresses.
Native Americans I have listed here, of course, must be listed in IMDb. However, that doesn't mean that actors not listed in IMDb are necessarily excluded. I don't know of any, but conceivably some Native American actors may be listed at IBDb (Internet Broadway Database) or elsewhere. Actors not listed in IMDb may be named at the bottom of this summary.
Actors in this list may or may not have majorly played Native American roles in films. But they are primarily known for being Native American. For example, Jim Thorpe is well known for being Native American, but his acting career is hardly known at all and was not related to his ancestry. On the other hand, Will Rogers is known to be part Cherokee, but his Native American ancestry is not generally known, and so is not included. But Jim Thorpe, whose ancestry is widely known, is included, despite his film career being generally unknown. Some may have only a small portion of Native American blood, but have portrayed significant Native American roles. Others may have a significant degree of Native American blood, but have played only small Native American roles. This list is a mixture of those these standards.
Actors listed here may not necessarily be of great cinematic note. Dennis Banks and Jim Thorpe are prime examples. Many Native American actors have taken up the cause of their native people in promoting their culture, language and affairs. This activity adds to their ancestral familiarity and so are included here. They may not be well known for their acting, but are better known for their activism. It's my intention to include them here, if they have played some significant film role.
Most Native American actors have been typecast as Indians. That is changing very slowly. The most successful Native American actors to escape typecasting are 1) Adam Beach, 2) Graham Greene to some degree, 3) Lou Diamond Phillips and 4) Wes Studi.
At this time I don't intend to get into other film or TV professions besides acting. I don't own or watch TV, so performances named here are primarily cinematic rolls, but I do include some TV roles if significant cinema rolls are lacking.
That said, this is a film category that is VERY political at its very nature, and political commentary may not be avoided. Congressman Ron Paul started a revolution of ideas that is in progress. As he said, it is not a violent revolution, but one of ideas. It will be a revolution of ideas conflicting with the establishment's ideals. People will see truth and accept that truth instead of the deceit and duplicity shown by the establishment. By that means the establishment will collapse from lack of support. These films show that taking place.
I believe that most people will like the messages that these films portray. The general intent behind these films is to restore liberty to the United States and the rest of the world. I could get a great deal deeper into an explanation of that, but this essay is intended simply as a description of this list. I simply suggest people fully consider how liberty in ALL its aspects could / should / would be restored, and they will probably find the messages in these films align with those ideas and plans they come up with.
Due to the nature of this list, most of the films will be documentaries or stories based on some real incident or story. However, a few films will come along offering prophecy. In any case, these films either have had or I expect will have a broad effect.
I believe this list is in its infancy and many more films will soon be revealed, as we move toward a restoration of liberty. I would appreciate knowing of any films I may have missed, that one may think should be added.
Two musicals, Les Miserables and Phantom of the Opera, have seen many more productions and longer runs on stage than any other stage musical. A current stage production of Phantom of the Opera holds the record for being the longest continuous stage production, as it has been running in New York continuously since 1988 (24 years through 2012). Les Miserables ran for 16 years into 2003. Compare that to the Broadway runs of South Pacific at six years, Sound of Music at four years and My Fair Lady at six years. This does not bode well for mankind's views about entertainment, in that he would favor the sad stories over much more cheerful ones. However I will retain my optimistic view of musicals, because it is the cheerful ones that I enjoy most.
A search of IMDb lists 23,096 musicals through 2012. Within that number are 138 films IMDb considers to be musicals prior to 1928 (introduction of sound to films). Some of those 138 films date back as early as 1900. It escapes me how one could call a film without singing (let alone speech) to be a musical. Simply having an organ or piano play music, during the showing of a film, does not constitute a musical. Clearly IMDb's idea of what a musical consists of needs some attention.
In the IMDb glossary, IMDb defines a musical as a work that "includes unrealistic episodes of musical performance". However, that is simply too vague, simplistic and incomplete a definition. Dictionary.com says a musical is a performance "in which the story line is interspersed with or developed by songs, dances, and the like". This is much closer to the real definition of a musical. A musical is a performance (either stage, cinema or TV) wherein at least a portion of the plot dialog is expressed in SPONTANEOUS song, rather than in prose. It is key in the definition to indicate that spontaneous song is part of the plot dialog. Simply having songs, sung to an audience within a film, does not constitute a musical. Spontaneous dancing is another important component of a musical, and should accompany much of the singing.
The film, Walk the Line (2005) with Joaquin Phoenix & Reese Witherspoon, has a lot of music & song and is a great film. However, it is not a musical by definition, because there is no spontaneous singing in the plot dialog. All the singing in that film is done in performance for an audience within the plot of the film.
For me, a musical must be acted with real people to show how real people feel about real things. This eliminates animated films from consideration on this list. Some may be partly animated, such as Song of the South (1946), but the singing of plot dialog is done by actors in that film, not caricatures.
The following films are often credited as musicals, but in fact are not, as they do not have singing in the story line. All That Jazz (1979) (film about the production of a stage musical, but not a musical unto itself) Cabaret (1972) (film about a singer, but not a musical unto itself) The Jazz Singer (1927) (For the life of me, I can't understand how you can credit a silent film as a musical.) Love Me or Leave Me (1955) (Very fine story about a singer, but not a musical unto itself) Pal Joey (1957) (Story about the building of a night club with singing, but not a musical unto itself) That's Entertainment, Part II (1976) (a documentary about musicals) Ziegfeld Follies (1945) (a series of disjointed vaudeville acts done on film in a tribute to Florenz Ziegfeld)
Great musicals should be in color. Color adds a great deal to the upbeat feeling in a film. Nowadays there is no reason to not make a musical in color. Therefore it is easy for me to say the great musical era started in the 1940s, as color took hold in the film industry. This great era of musicals started wanning in the late 1960s. There were a few great musicals in the 1970s, but by 1980 the great musical era had died. Since 1980 great musicals have been very few, Chicago (2002) being most prominent.
Personally I believe this was partly caused by music in our society becoming less harmonious and more and more just grating noise. Nobody sings heavy metal or acid rock music spontaneously in the shower or to friends on the spur of the moment, so it has no place in a musical. Keep in mind that the definition of a musical is spontaneous singing & dancing embedded in the plot.
Much of the verbiage in modern singing cannot be comprehended, as it is just noise. That factor excludes such music from musicals, since the plot is widely explained in song in musicals. One must be able to understand the verbiage in the dialog in a film to understand the plot. Modern music is making this increasingly difficult.
Rock of Ages (2012) with Tom Cruise, while technically a musical, the music has no harmony. The music is grating. It's just noise - no harmony. So the music in a great musical must be harmonious and pleasant.
A major factor, in the greatness of musicals, is the effect the film has had on the industry. One looks at how prominent it was in the film industry. One considers how the songs of the film are received socially. Do people have those songs running in their minds? Do they sing the songs to others, or even to themselves? This would show the film had a great effect on that individual.
A final consideration in the greatness of a film is the plot. One of my favorite musicals is Silk Stockings (1957) with Fred Astaire & Cyd Charisse. In addition to being a musical, it is a comical satire on communist Russia. At that time Russian society was very suppressed and this film shows how silly that was. Other films such as Annie (1982/1999) & Oliver (1968) show the plight of children in poverty. Bugsy Malone (1976) is a satire on the violence in the prohibition era.
Most musicals (not all) tend to fall into two categories of plot - 1) Romance and 2) Musical Revue. The romance category is where the plot centers on a developing romance with all it's trials and tribulations, such as in Brigadoon (1954), Camelot (1967), Funny Face (1957) and My Fair Lady (1964).
I define a "musical revue" as a story about the development of a musical, a musical team, or the story of a musical personality. If it's about the development of a musical, it's usually a stage production within the film. That stage performance is almost never shown in the musical film, as the film is about its development, and film time being a consideration. So a musical revue is a musical within a musical of sorts. Examples include The Band Wagon (1953), There's No Business Like Show Business (1954), Anything Goes (1956), and A Chorus Line (1985). Chicago (2002) included musical revue as a subplot, but was majorly about murder & crime culture.
I can't say that I have seen all these films. I have seen a little more than half of them. In any case, I cannot attest that they all meet these definitions and standards. Some have been included because of the plot or the effect they had on the industry. I will find out how they fit in as I continue to see them. If anyone knows of a musical I have missed, that they feel should be included, I would certainly like to know about it.
Picking the top eleven (can't cut it to ten), I would select:
Bugsy Malone (1976) (Included here, as it is great for children, being acted entirely by children making a satire of violence in the prohibition era.)
Camelot (1967) (Included here because in addition to being a musical fan, I am a big fan of the King Arthur legend.)
Chicago (2002) (Included here because it is by far the greatest film musical since the 1970s.)
Funny Girl (1968) Hello, Dolly! (1969) (Barbara Streisand's commanding voice and comedic acting carried both of these films into greatness.)
My Fair Lady (1964) (In addition to the great songs, I enjoy the comedic cattiness between Eliza and Higgins, as well as his comedic indifference to human feelings and emotion.)
Silk Stockings (1957) (The most striking thing about this film is the satire on socialism. There are very few musicals having social commentary, and it is a pleasure to see one with satire on socialism, coupled with great upbeat singing & dance.)
Singin' in the Rain (1952) (I include this film here because IMDb's rating is so high and because Paramount thinks so highly of its creation. (see That's Entertainment (1974) documentary) To me romance and revue are themes that are too trite to bring the film to the top. Nevertheless, Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor had to have some credit in this list.)
Song of the South (1946) (Political correctness by Disney (producer) virtually suppressed this film out of existence. Even today, the DVD version is suppressed by IMDb, as the IMDb link to Amazon doesn't work. This is done in the mistaken belief the film is racist because it depicts a poor Black man, Uncle Remus. In reality Uncle Remus helps a young white boy resolve problems in life by telling him animal stories. It's a great musical for children, as Uncle Remus' stories are accompanied with cartoons depicting his stories. There are too few great children's great musicals.)
Sound of Music (1965) (This film has music that is widely sung and played, even today. Flash mobs, singing Do Re Me, have been performed around the world - Korea, Brussels and else where. The plot is very uplifting, as it depicts a real life escape from the Nazis as they took over Austria in 1938. There are two romances and children do a great deal of the singing. )
South Pacific (1958) (I really like Mitzi Gaynor's singing and dancing. She is about the most upbeat actress / singer I can think of. It is that quality of her upbeat singing that has carried this film into familiarity, even today.)
These are in no particular order except alphabetical. However, for me, My Fair Lady is #1, and Silk Stockings is #2.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUSICALS AND OPERAS
People often confuse operas and musicals. They are different genres with different followings. A reference in the NY Times very clearly explains the difference:
New York Times Opera? Musical? Please Respect the Difference; by Anthony Tommasini; 7 July 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/theater/musical-or-opera-the-fine-line-that-divides-them.html
"Both genres seek to combine words and music in dynamic, felicitous and, to invoke that all-purpose term, artistic ways. But in opera, music is the driving force; in musical theater, words come first. This explains why for centuries opera-goers have revered works written in languages they do not speak."
Thus people who listen to Mozart's Figaro generally prefer to hear it in Italian. However, a translation of My Fair Lady to Italian would miss all the English nuances in the original.
Most people think of films showing Allies escaping, but at least two of these films show German escape attempts. Two of the films show escapes from the Japanese.
I label the films either "Fiction" (no basis in actual incident, though possible real location) or "Truthful" (varying degrees of basis in actual incident).
It's not my intention to include documentaries, as they don't have the entertainment value that Hollywood made films have. Documentaries are very educational, but I watch films for their entertainment value, not to necessarily become educated.
If anyone knows of any other WW II escape films I have missed, I would certainly like to know about them.
The quality of comedy changes through time as social values change. What was considered comical 100 years ago may not be considered comical today. Or there may be a shift in social values from one group of people to another.
Case in point is The Birdcage (1996). What makes The Birdcage so comical to me is the absurdity, unexpectedness and social predicaments that homosexuality presents, while others may not accept or recognize such absurdity, unexpectedness or predicaments.
Just as with any other genre, comedy gets mixed with other genres. This list is of films that concentrate on comedy.
Reviews
The Fifth Missile (1986)
Very Suspsenseful but Some Unrealistic Points
Spoiler Alert - Ending Revealed This film is full of suspense, but has several points that are very unrealistic.
1) It is very unrealistic that any drug would have a beneficial reaction to another toxin. It makes an interesting plot, but it's a very unrealistic scenario. Equavil, the fictional drug in question, is described to treat "reactive depression". Therefore the presumed effect it would have would be to increase anxiety, the reaction that the crew was already having to the toxin in the paint. That makes the story of Equavil neutralizing the toxin totally implausible.
2) The crew exited the submarine Montana North of the Arctic Circle, possibly even North of 70 degrees latitude. The water temperature at that latitude would be unbearably cold. The crew would not survive long enough for more helicopters to get to them, except those in the rafts. But as can be viewed in the film, most of the crew were not in rafts, but in the water.
3) What was the purpose of Capt. Allard Renslow jumping out of the helicopter into the water? He could not possibly help any of the crew in the water, once he was in the water himself, especially water as cold as it would be North of the Arctic Circle. Renslow jumping into the water had a dramatic effect to rejoin with Van Meer. Nevertheless, there was no way Renslow would be any benefit to Van Meer or any of the other crew in the water.
Springtime in the Rockies (1942)
More a Showing of Harry James than Plot Development
This is one of those musicals, common in the 1930s & 40s, that was more of a display of orchestras than for plot development. In the 1930s & 40s many musicals were created for the purpose of displaying some famous orchestra. Such musicals showed little plot development. This is one such musical.
Charlotte Greenwood is given the opportunity several times to show her extraordinary ability for high kicking, but it was out of place with regard to the overall plot.
An excessive amount of time is given to Harry James and his orchestra. Harry James' character is totally inconsequential to the plot.
Helen Forrest sings a number that takes up several minutes, but does not appear in the film at any other time.
What plot development there is, is fairly interesting as Vicky Lane & Dan Christy jump in and our of love for each other, as other romantic relationships develop as well.
The Great Gatsby (2013)
Terrible Film
This film is a classic example of an ignorant public being drawn to a bad film because of all the hype the studio put out saying what a great film it would be.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire are fine actors and demonstrate their fine acting ability here. But the plot of this film is shallow and pointless. It's the screen writers, Baz Luhrmann & Craig Pearce, that failed in this film. The film has no excitement, nothing that the plot leads toward for the viewer to look forward to. I have not read the book, so I have no idea how the film follows the book. But it makes no difference, because this film has no entertainment value.
Yet, the public has bought into the studio hype that this is a great film and is giving it high ratings. It's amazing how a robotic, shallow public will be so easily entertained with such a mundane story. The studio really can make a film appear great to a shallow minded public, if they put enough money into the advertising, as they have for this film.
Django Unchained (2012)
Just More Vengeful Violence
For those entertained by violence, this may be just the film. It's mostly about a slave that gets his freedom and wants to free his wife. In doing so, he kills a whole bunch of white (and Negro) slavers. But those looking for some thought provocation or intrigue, skip it. If you simply want to go see a movie showing someone really upset with the world and gets his revenge, then this might be just the film. If you want to see a lot of shooting and split blood, then this will probably suit you. If you want to see a film that doesn't require any exercise of the intellect, then this film will probably be what you are looking for.
The acting is fine. All the actors do their job very well, but it's not the actors that write the story or the script. DeCaprio does very well as a Southern slave owner - very sly and deceitful. Jamie Fox does very well at getting revenge and shooting people. Several times in the film he has to just sit & bite his tongue until he gets his chance. But that doesn't really take much acting ability. Fox may very well be a fine actor, but this film is no test of his acting ability. Anyone can simply go and shoot a bunch of people. That's been done in thousands of films.
Bugsy Malone (1976)
Musical Satire
This musical is a satire on the prohibition and resulting violence occurring in the 1920's. All the characters are kids playing adult roles. The satire is drawn against Bugsy Malone's younger life. The cars are all peddle operated. People get shot with paint and there are plenty of pies in the faces to substitute for violence. Instead of dealing in liquor, the kids are black marketing sarsaparilla (root beer). It's just a great satire of the prohibition era made into a musical, a great credit to younger generation actors. All the kids really do act the part of adults and do it very well. It is too bad the singing is not credited.
Bad Teacher (2011)
Really Bad Film
I don't usually get this far off in judging a film before I go see it. I went to this film, because I thought Cameron Diaz could make it good. Wow, was I wrong. Ms. Diaz' acting is as bad as the rest of the film. She is a very good looking lady, but her acting is really poor and that is exemplified in this film.
The script is really bad. The directing is really bad. The acting is really bad by all actors. This film has no redeeming qualities, unless one wants to simply see Ms. Diaz display her body. She does do that.
Warning - There is pornography (not by Cameron Diaz) in this film. I didn't check the rating before seeing it, but the porno is there. One wonders why producers, directors and writers put that stuff in their films. Here it just further degrades an already really lousy film.
Sweet Charity (1969)
Pretty Poor Excuse for Musical
Right off, I will admit I am no fan of Shirely MacLaine. In some films she does well enough as an actress such as "Some Came Running" and her first film, "The Trouble with Harry". But someone made the mistake of suggesting she could sing. Opps!!! Big mistake. She can't as is well demonstrated here and neither can most of the rest of this cast. Sammy Davis Jr. we know can sing if given some decent material to sing, but here he is singing among some hippie church revival group. Chita Rivera, like MacLaine, just can't sing.
You know, sometimes a film is made as a showpiece for some particular actor to demonstrate his / her talent, and it appears this one was to show off Ms. MacLaine's singing ability. Well, now we've seen what there is of that and we can move on.
Musicals typically contain dancing as well. Now I know that some actors that don't normally dance can be taught to dance for a particular film, such as Zellweger, Zeta-Jones & Gere in "Chicago". But it's pretty obvious that no one spent much time to teach Ms. MacLaine to do any real dancing. She does one dance number, "There's Got to Be Something Better Than This" with Paula Kelly and Chita Rivera that comes off well. But the dancing she does with John McMartin is really poor. So much for the quality of this disaster as a musical.
As a romantic film, this thing is worse. No plot twists or anything unexpected. Just a lovesick girl so desperate for affection she will take ANYTHING as evidenced in the first scene. MacLaine plays this lovesick girl like she is begging for affection and ends up with someone else like herself. I guess they were made for each other, but not for entertainment.
All Night Long (1981)
Boring & Pointless
This plot leads no where. There is really little comedy here. Even Gene Hackman seemed bored with his role through the first half of the film.
Both Gene Hackman and Barbara Streisand are terrific comedic actors, but here they offer no comedy. It starts off in the first scene with a chair going thru the window, but there is no attempt to follow that up with comedic dialog. There are some attempts at slapstick while Hackman works his night job, but those are pretty poor.
The plot is pretty confusing and one is not sure who is with who. Streisand does look pretty sexy here, but she doesn't offer the one-liners she has in other comedic roles.
Il giovane Mussolini (1993)
Nothing Here About the Fall of Mussolini
Mussolini was a bullying opportunist, a hooligan who would use shouting in an uninterupptible manner in is oratory discourse to overwhelm his debaters. He had little to no real understanding or belief in the socialism he professed to espouse. Rather he used the socialist party to build his own image and to further his own career. In this film this is perceived of him by both his wife, Rachele, and his sometime supporter, Angelika Balabanoff. However, neither had the gumption to stand by their convictions as Benito's significance to them had grown such that neither could ignore him. The film tries to conceal this point, but it does come out, knowing where Benito was headed after the film ends.
The English title is pretty misleading. The film ends in 1915, just before Italy enters World War I on the side of the Allies, as Mussolini intended. So there is nothing in the film about the "... Fall of Mussolini". The film deals only with "... The Rise ..." The Italian title is much more accurate, as it does deal pretty much with Mussolini's youth, 1901-1915. I watched the English audio version. Another reviewer stated the Italian version (English subtitled) was better because it was more passionate. That may well be, but both versions on the DVD are dubbed. That's not Antonio Banderas speaking Italian on the Italian version.
Perhaps for educational value, the film has some merit to get an idea what Mussolini's life was like 1901-1915. It seems chronologically accurate, though it may be debatable whether Mussolini resigned or was expelled and/or fired from his various positions. In the film he is portrayed as resigning from the socialist party, but per Wikipedia he was expelled. So the film may not be absolutely accurate, but one can get a feel for what Mussolini was like in the film as he bullied people and constantly espoused and provoked violence. I find it interesting that the film ends just before Mussolini is about to show his true colors as he enters the war himself (the war being opposed by the socialist party) and afterward promotes Fascism (diametrically opposed to the socialism he professed before the war).
I give the film a low rating based on its entertainment value. The film does have some educational value which is why I watched it. However, I find little entertainment value in the glorification of such a hypocritical opportunist as Benito Mussolini and for me film ratings are based on entertainment value.
Charade (1963)
Everything here but the kitchen sink!!!
For me this is my favorite film of all time. Cary Grant & Audrey Hepburn are my two favorite actors. This film has everything in it that one looks for. It has intrigue, comedy, plot twists, romance. Cary Grant keeps changing his identity so you don't really find out who he is until the very last scene. Audrey Hepburn (Reggie Lampert) turns hot & cold with him as he changes his identities. Thrown into this mix is a French police inspector who is trying himself to find out who killed Reggie's husband. Then everyone is after the quarter million dollars in gold that no one can figure out where it is until the end. And therein lies the big mystery - where is all that money? And who is doing all the killing as dead bodies keep piling up? All the constantly changing identities and scheming that Cary Grant pulls off just makes Reggie that more attracted to him. And he isn't the only one lying about his identity. 10/10
The Good Shepherd (2006)
Simply a series of disrelated Anecdotes - No plot
What a disjointed story!!! I was very disappointed in "The Good Shepherd". This film is simply a series of anecdotes as Edward recalls his life and involvement in the CIA via a series of disjointed flashbacks. The film has no continuous plot to draw one through.
If one is simply looking for disrelated data about the CIA or Mr. Wilson, then this might be just the film. I sat through it and kept hoping that one of these anecdotes would lead to some plot development, but they never did. Each anecdote simply ended with the end of that flashback. Then Wilson comes back to present time before he flashes back to another disrelated anecdote.
This might be just fine for someone that simply wants to see disrelated data about the CIA & Mr. Wilson, but it's not very entertaining. Matt Damon & Angelina Jolie do their jobs just fine. They are fine actors and do well here as much as the non-script will allow them. DeNiro appears and gives a fine performance in his short role. Alec Baldwin is less impressive, but also appears in only a minor role. What can you expect since there is no continuity? No PLOT!!! I give it a 3/10 for the data it does offer about the CIA.
Twelfth Night, or What You Will (1988)
Disappointing
I was disappointed with this production. I do prefer traditional settings with Shakespeare; but aside from that, the performances were just not strong enough. Malvolio's cross-gartering & yellow stockings simply do not lend themselves to 19th century dress as depicted in this version. Shakespeare wrote the play around 1600 and at that time yellow stockings could be much more easily displayed. But in the rest of this play, as well as the later half of the 19th century when this versions is set, men including Malvolio were wearing full-length pants. It makes the cross-gartering & yellow stockings much more of a contrivance than it would in a traditional Shakespearean setting.
Part of what made this film disappointing was the weather that was displayed. It was dreary most of the time, if not snowing. This is a comedy and the setting should be light & cheery in comedies. I see that the setting was at Christmas, which is fine I guess, but the overall effect of the weather is to make the play seem more dreary than it should be.
The part of Olivia was done fairly well, but there were no really standout performances here. Viola simply gave an average performance. Aguecheek here should be much more effeminate. Sir Toby Belch should appear more drunk & slovenly most of the time. He appeared to me a little too dignified. Malvolio, being the object of much of the clownery, should be more indignant than he appears here. On his release, he stands motionless in silence for some minutes. Fabian seems almost sorry for him, instead of snickering as he might be.
All in all I found the performances to be fairly average. I have seen this play on stage several times and it was done significantly better every time than it was here. The acting was much more intense in the performances I have seen on stage than the acting in this version.
Romeo and Juliet (1976)
Good Traditional Shakespeare
The acting here is fairly good. It's not really great as it doesn't stand out. The thing I really liked about this production is the costuming and scenery. These are important to me to help understand the play as Shakespeare intended. In this production the street scenes take place with street people around to give the feeling that the scene really is on the street. The scenes indoors likewise show what indoors would show in the time period. The dance scene is done showing many people dancing, though Rosaline is not shown as she is in some productions. Costumes were not cheaply done. Nobility are arrayed in very fine apparel.
As far as the acting is concerned, I didn't feel there were any standout performances, except perhaps Christopher Biggins as a Capulet servant who can't read, a good comical part. Biggins did a good job of pulling off the comedy of his part. The Nurse and Peter are supposed to be comical characters and they try at it, but don't come off as well as in other versions of Romeo and Juliet. The parts of Romeo & Juliet are delivered fairly well, but don't stand out. Juliet's father, Capulet, seems just a bit effeminate, rather inappropriate for so domineering a father, husband and lord of the house. Tybalt should be much more antagonistic and sly. Here he is certainly willing to fight, but it almost seems as if it was Mercutio that was the antagonist in the fight between he & Tybalt. Mercutio does a good job in his incessant talk at nothing, which is as his character is supposed to be. He rambles and makes it seem natural.
Lastly, the credits are lacking. The most notable omission is that there is no credit for Benvolio. Lady Montague and Peter are missing as well in the credits. Many of the other credits are missing in the film, but are filled in by IMDb.
A Performance of Macbeth (1979)
Talking Heads Version
This version is set in approximately the late 19th century by costuming. There is no scenery and very few props. The characters act against a black background. Acting itself is superb. Macbeth & the Witches are appropriately frothing at the mouth at the proper times. Ian McKellen & Judi Dench perform their standard great performances. Ian McDiarmid does a great job as the Porter. That is particularly significant, as it is one of the few comical parts in a very gloomy play.
However, I miss the scenery & traditional costuming. McKellen explains in an extra on the DVD that all the costuming, scenery & props (including Macbeth's shrunken heads at the end a little much ???) were all provided for only £250. He calls the production one of "talking heads". Well, that's true, as for a very large part all you see is the characters' faces against a black background. Personally I look for something more in a Shakespeare production. I believe the scenery & costuming to be important in setting the scene. Shakespeare is difficult enough to understand when set with scenery & costumes. When scenery & costumes are taken out, then it becomes more difficult to understand. I feel too much is left to the imagination or to the guesswork of the viewer. If one has the text to follow along with, accompanied with footnotes & a Shakespeare glossary, then it's less of a problem. But then one can't just sit back & enjoy the play. One must constantly refer to the text footnotes to understand what is happening, unless one is a real Shakespeare aficionado.
If all you want is great acting full of emotion and you don't care about lack of scenery or costumes, then perhaps this version of Macbeth is for you. Occasionally the dialog is cut or changed from one character to another, presumably for no other reason than to give that actor some lines. But personally I miss the scenery, costuming and sword play. As McKellen explains, except for the acting itself, this is certainly a cheap version of Macbeth. As long as the production saved a lot of money in production, I recommend you do likewise and look for another version of Macbeth. There are lots of well acted versions out there that spent money on scenery & costumes.
The Red, White, and Black (1970)
Entirely Worthless
I have never seen such a film that has so little value as this version of Buffalo Soldiers. The black soldiers that operated in the American West after the Civil War deserved better than this.
This film had no plot. The acting was extremely poor. There was no character development. It was mis-cast. The costuming of the Indians was extremely poor. The songs were really poor; it would have done better without such boring songs. Where do they find such lousy composers? The Indians were dressed in modern clothing made to look ragged. They had headbands that were obviously recently color dyed for the film.
Cesar Romero is a fine actor, but it is pretty unreal to find a Latin officer in the US Army defending the US border with Mexico. Barbara Hale plays his wife. She took her part pretty insincerely. I agree with her, as no one could take this film seriously. 1/10
Gods and Generals (2003)
Long and Dreary, but last battle Great !!!
I could definitely have done without Jeff Daniels' 2 min - 40 second soliloquy. While it was pertinent (comparison of Julius Ceasar not sending troops to invade Italy and question of the Union sending troops to invade their own country), it seemed the whole purpose of this soliloquy was to demonstrate Daniels' character as a philosophy professor, after all he failed previously when one of his students caught him on a philosophical point about slavery. I can just see an infantry colonel on the eve of battle soliloquizing for 2-1/2 minutes about Juiius Ceasar. I don't think so; let's just get on with what's at hand and forget about Julius Ceasar.
The DVD production company put this film on two sides of a DVD and cut it right in the middle of a Union charge at the Battle of Fredericksburg. That was poor enough to put it on two sides, but then they cut it in the middle of a battle charge. And then on top of that, the balance of the battle charge was left off of the second side. Very poor editing on the DVD.
A little over-acted in many places, such as Daniels' 2-1/2 minute soliloquy. The last battle however is really well done. The film shows the planning and execution of this battle really well. I wish other battles had been shown as well as this one. My vote 5/10
Mary Poppins (1964)
No Plot as with great musicals
I am a great fan of Julie Andrews, so I really wanted this to be good. Ms. Andrews does her usual great job of singing and adds whatever she can to the film.
The film is really a bunch of disrelated incidents and experiences (no plot connection) designed to entertain the two children. So for children, that might be very sufficient. But for myself I like to see some plot development.
Many people may plead that musicals need not rely on plot. I would disagree. The really great musicals all had real plot development. The various disrelated incidents lead to morale development, but spark little other interest.
The Yards (2000)
Very realistic film about business and political corruption
This is a very under-rated film. It presents a very realistic situation that could easily happen between corrupt businessmen and corrupt politicians. The characters were presented as they might easily appear in real life.
The story line is of Leo (Wahlberg) who just gets out of prison on parole and looks to his uncle (Caan) to get a job so he can support himself and his mom. Willie (Phoenix) gets Leo involved in a late night escapade where a cop gets beaten up and a railway worker gets killed. Leo is caught between the "code of silence" in the criminal world and the pursuit of the cops after him, thinking he is responsible for the killing.
Leo has a lot of feeling for his family, especially his mom, Val, (Burstyn) and gets caught up in the corruption of the railway business. Frank Olchin (Caan) is a step uncle that Wahlberg tries to get a job with. Olchin really does have non-corrupting intentions for Leo. Leo tries to adhere to the criminal "code of silence", but the pressure builds.
Erica (Theron) is Olchin's step-daughter and full daughter to Kitty (Dunaway) who has married Olchin. None of the women (Val, Erica & Kitty) know about or are involved in the corruption but their feelings get stepped on due to the circumstances of what's going on.
The action is not as intense as in many crime dramas. But this leads it to being more realistic, yet it retains one's interest to see how things work out. There is some nudity, but the lone sex scene is not so long that it detracts from the story line. It's just there to show the relationship between Willie and Erica and to let Willie loosen up after a tough evening. I give the film a 10/10.
La partita (1988)
Generally poor acting, but good story with good sets & costumes
Certainly no one would watch this film for its quality acting. Faye Dunaway and Jennifer Beals are the major exceptions. These two ladies deliver prime performances as do a few of the other actors (Karina Huff as an estate serving woman and Claudia Lawrence as Olivia's nurse).
Unfortunately the film centers around Matthew Modine who continually demonstrates he should have sought out another profession than acting. He is supposed to be quite the lady's man here and various actresses do their part to try to make him look that way. But Modine just doesn't have what it takes to carry it off to the audience. Perhaps he will stick to stunts and sword play as he would probably do well at that. But if there is a god, he won't speak another line of dialogue in film.
Ian Bannen plays Modine's father and his part suffers I believe from poor directing. Bannen is an accomplished actor and should have done better, but it appears to me that he was simply directed to make himself appear pure victim rather than take his losses like a man of sterner stuff.
The thing I liked about the film is it's unique story line and the intensity that Faye Dunaway introduces into the story. It's a story of one Francesco Sacredo (Modine) who wagers and loses his rights to his life and livingness to Countess Matilda (Dunaway). On losing the wager Sacredo refuses to abide by the terms of the wager and flees. In his flight he hops in and out of bed with most of the women he meets along the way. The Countess hires men to pursue him and the pursuit of Sacredo becomes a game for the Countess like a cat playing with a mouse. It's this last aspect of the film that makes the film for me, in spite of Modine's and Bannen's acting.
I also liked the sets and costuming. They seemed well done. I give it a 7/10 for Dunaway's and Beal's parts and the story line minus the Modine factor.
The Great Raid (2005)
Greatest War Story
This is a really well written, directed and acted war movie. I wish it had been filmed in real, natural color, not the grey overtone to make it look like it was filmed during WW II.
Everything about it is great except the photography. The cinemaphotographer tried to create the same effect in "Sky Captian, World of Tomorrow" with Jude Law. This greyed out effect is unnatural and detracts from the overall quality of the film. There is nothing wrong with depicting real color, rather than cheapening it to look like a lesser quality film was used. There is some archive footage that was undoubtedly filmed during the war and is black & white. That's fine, but modern film doesn't need to be made to look like it's lower quality film.
The war scenes are very realistic. The film is a great depiction of the underground activity in Manila, as well as realistic scenes from the POW camp. The rescue operation is suspenseful and detailed. GREAT STORY!!! 9/10
Norma Jean & Marilyn (1996)
Pointless Film - No Entertainment Value
Just exactly why the producers made this film I cannot understand. Now I am not familiar with the exact events of Marilyn Monroe's life, so I could not judge the accuracy of this film in depicting her life. But this film is totally disappointing in the depiction of her life. The question in my mind is "Did the producers & writers of this film truly enjoy telling the world how screwed up Marlilyn Monroe's life really was?" Did the producers really enjoy making this film? It is a pretty degraded purpose to tear up someone's life like this and expose it to the world as "entertainment", regardless of how accurate it is.
To me films should serve as entertainment. The entertainment value of this film is absolute ZERO. It shows none of the happier moments of Marilyn's life, except in her childhood, but then it only goes downhill from there. There is nothing in this film that glorifies the most celebrated of all actresses.
If you want some graphical depiction of the degraded points of Marilyn's life, then perhaps this film is for you. But if you are looking to be entertained, unless you are pretty sadistic, look elsewhere for entertainment. 1/10
Love Is Forever (1983)
Great Plot but Really Lousy Filming Job
This film has a really interesting plot. The acting is pretty good as well. It is a real life story about the height of integrity of a journalist in Laos, and the extent to which he will go for his girlfriend. It is a very uplifting story.
However, the DVD versions of the film (I have seen two DVD versions) are extremely poor. The sound is so terrible, that frequently the listener cannot tell what is being said, and there are no subtitles or closed captioning. There is a constant roaring sound in the background of the soundtrack for the entire film that makes the voices often difficult to understand.
The film has really bad resolution and it is often dark. The lighting and resolution are frequently so poor that one cannot recognize which characters are in the scene.
The producers of the DVDs frequently bill the film as starring Priscilla Presley. If you are a Priscilla Presley fan, don't be fooled by this as she appears on the screen for a total of perhaps 2 minutes and has about three lines. She plays a very minor role in the film. It is strange that the real heroine in this film, Laura Gemser, usually gets much less billing.
The film can usually be purchased for less than $5, which to me is worth it. But be aware that the sound and video quality are EXTREMELY poor. So I give the plot a 9 and the filming a 1 for an average of 5/10.
High Fidelity (2000)
Worthless
This film simply consists of the ramblings of one Rob Gordon (characteristically played by John Cusack) who simply rambles on about his life. He discusses why his girlfriends left him, and of course Gordon has no responsibility for that, as if it was their shortcomings for leaving him. Then the other half of his life is his record store where he has hired two people who are less responsible and intelligent than Gordon is, if that is possible.
Jack Black very characteristically plays a real jerk that drives customers out of the record store, but Gordon complains that he can't fire his employees.
If you enjoy films that have absolutely no plot and consist entirely of the ramblings of an irresponsible person complaining about his life, then this might just be the film for you. This film has absolutely no plot. It has no entertainment value whatsoever, except for people looking for empathy in a degraded life.
The Merchant of Venice (2004)
Should have been much better !!!
I just saw this film, The Merchant of Venice today. I was somewhat disappointed for several reasons. One, much of the dialogue was difficult to hear, especially Shylock played by Al Pacino who should know better.
Two, Al Pacino did not display the intensity of emotion in this film that I know he is capable of. In the film "Devil's Advocate" he displayed lots of emotion. That was missing here, except for his grief at the trial.
***Spolier*** Another point was that some of the dialogue was omitted. At the end, it was omitted that all of Antonio's ships came to port after all. In the play, the point is made at the end that all of Antonio's ships came to port and none were shipwrecked afterall, though this point was omitted in this production.
Most significant is the omission of real comedy in this production. It seems that whenever Shakespeare is played on the screen comedy must be omitted in place of real drama & tragedy as opposed to seeing Shakespeare on the stage where Shakespeare's comedy is preserved. That was the case in this production. Here the basic story is intact and retains, yea even exemplifies the drama and seriousness of the moment at the cost of removing any comical moments in the play.
Shakespeare intended this play to be a comedy, and while modern ideas of comedy are different than what they were at the time of Shakespeare, most of Shakepeare's comedy is still valid. That does not come through in this production. This production is all seriousness, no light-heartedness whatsoever. I give it a 6 out of 10 for the effort as I know this type of production is seldom profitable. But they could have done better and not have spent any more money.
The Taming of the Shrew (1967)
A Disgrace to Shakespeare
As Will Shakespeare wrote this story, it was supposed to be a comedy. However, Burton & Taylor removed all the comical elements to make it just plain drama probably to portray their own lives.
Shakespeare wrote comedies where a great deal of the comedy is acted by minor characters in the stories. In this production, no minor characters were allowed to do that and the removal of all that comedy can only be attributed to Burton & Taylor being producers of the film. It appears that Burton & Taylor wanted to use this production to portray their own personal marriage travails, not to portray Shakespeare drama.
The scene where Biondello brings the books for Baptista's daughters to study became very dry though Biondello is supposed to be comical in this scene. The scene where Petruchio gets clothes becomes dry because the Haberdasher is not allowed to react to Burton's comments.
All this might be of small consequence if Burton & Taylor could act comedy themselves, but they can't. Neither Burton nor Taylor were capable of comedy. They are both fine dramatic actors, but not for comedy. They take their parts far too seriously to act comedy. Unless the actor is doing a monologue, comedy usually requires a working relationship between two actors. Burton & Taylor did not allow that relationship with the minor characters in this production, though they did attempt it between themselves. But they are far too serious in their dialogue to come off comically.
For real Shakespeare comedy, see "Much Ado About Nothing" with Kenneth Branagh & Emma Thompson. Now that is real Shakespeare comedy. Be sure to observe the flippant dialogue & bantering between Benedick & Beatrice, as well as Dogberry's lines to the judge and the criminal's reactions when they are brought before the judge. This production of "The Taming of the Shrew" is a true disgrace to the spirit of William Shakespeare.