39 reviews
How this movie got a nomination for best picture is beyond me. The only thing good is Adam Driver's acting. He is the only character worth any sympathy in the film. The rest just don't cut it in my opinion. And the story itself is horrible. One hint - the movie has an "R" rating only because when the characters had nothing else to say, the script had them throw in an f-bomb. Dern and Liotta are two dimensional stereotypes that play on the hackneyed joke of "we all hate lawyers." I didn't care about any character. Frankly, I found myself thinking the leads deserved to be miserable, because they were doing their best to make everyone around them miserable. So no, I don't get why or how this could be an Oscar worthy film.
I purchased a DVD collection from the company "DVD Megapacks" a few years ago entitled, "!00 Cartoon Classics." Disk 4 of that collection includes the following Teletunes: Ali Baba, The Magic Horn, Brave Molly, Hasty and the Princess, The Kindhearted Girl, The Three Sisters, and The Proud Princess.
As noted in other comments, the animation is crude but when accompanied by Mr. Crofoot's narration makes them interesting and introduced my children and me to several fairy tales I and they had never heard of. Tales such as "The Three Sisters" have character voicing with little or no narration and they do not fare as well.
If you have young children as I do, these are a decidedly different type of animation than the kids were used to, and generally enjoyable.
As noted in other comments, the animation is crude but when accompanied by Mr. Crofoot's narration makes them interesting and introduced my children and me to several fairy tales I and they had never heard of. Tales such as "The Three Sisters" have character voicing with little or no narration and they do not fare as well.
If you have young children as I do, these are a decidedly different type of animation than the kids were used to, and generally enjoyable.
This movie was difficult for me to watch. Stan looked very old and ill compared to what I remembered, and Ollie was heavier than I ever recall in another film. Most difficult though were gaps in the script/production where I found myself wondering, "How did they get from here to there???" It took nearly half the film before I could deal with the dubbing of non-American actors -- that was also a distraction.
Although I miss great actors such as Laurel and Hardy -- will there ever be great actors like those of the old studio era??? -- this film helps me understand why actors sometimes "bow out" in their prime.
Although I miss great actors such as Laurel and Hardy -- will there ever be great actors like those of the old studio era??? -- this film helps me understand why actors sometimes "bow out" in their prime.
WARNING: These comments may reveal portions of the film plot.
"Your New Producer" is an interesting study of how the old studio system kept their audiences interested in films and the people who made them. This short introduces "David O. Selznick," the new producer at the studio. Since Mr. Selznick himself has not appeared, comedic actor Robert Benchley gives you Mr. Selznick's background through shots of his previously produced films.
Selznick was as famous as many of the actors who would appear in the films he produced, his name becoming as recognisable as his stars, so that when he produced the classic, "Gone With the Wind," it would be billed as "David O. Selznick's 'Gone With the Wind' ".
For film historians, this short might prove interesting. For the everyday film watcher, it will likely be a bit of a yawn.
"Your New Producer" is an interesting study of how the old studio system kept their audiences interested in films and the people who made them. This short introduces "David O. Selznick," the new producer at the studio. Since Mr. Selznick himself has not appeared, comedic actor Robert Benchley gives you Mr. Selznick's background through shots of his previously produced films.
Selznick was as famous as many of the actors who would appear in the films he produced, his name becoming as recognisable as his stars, so that when he produced the classic, "Gone With the Wind," it would be billed as "David O. Selznick's 'Gone With the Wind' ".
For film historians, this short might prove interesting. For the everyday film watcher, it will likely be a bit of a yawn.
WARNING: These comments may reveal portions of the film plot.
This is what I enjoy about classic films -- good writing, good directing, and a tongue-in-cheek attitude. It's a good laugh watching Clark Gable and Walter Pidgeon both try to woo Myrna Loy. Don't take the film too seriously, and you'll enjoy it too!
Acting: Gable, Pidgeon, and Loy all are great, although Loy doesn't quite carry off the "missing brother" pathos as well as she does the brave pilot parts.
Writing: Also good, with lots of silliness to go around, while creating a solid romantic comedy.
Direction: Jack Conway let the actors do their best, and they did it well.
Effects/Cinematography: Why did they always speed up the fight sequences in those old films? Anytime there is action, the film picks up speed. The good news is, that the actual flying sequences look pretty realistic, considering that at one point Gable climbs onto the wing of a plane to get a good shot of a ship at sea that is on fire!
Other: Makeup, music, soundtrack, etc. all are solid, but these were not a big focus for films in the 30's, so there is nothing that stands out.
OVERALL: Check it out. I'm finding myself more and more of a Gable fan all the time, and this is the kind of movie that helps that image.
This is what I enjoy about classic films -- good writing, good directing, and a tongue-in-cheek attitude. It's a good laugh watching Clark Gable and Walter Pidgeon both try to woo Myrna Loy. Don't take the film too seriously, and you'll enjoy it too!
Acting: Gable, Pidgeon, and Loy all are great, although Loy doesn't quite carry off the "missing brother" pathos as well as she does the brave pilot parts.
Writing: Also good, with lots of silliness to go around, while creating a solid romantic comedy.
Direction: Jack Conway let the actors do their best, and they did it well.
Effects/Cinematography: Why did they always speed up the fight sequences in those old films? Anytime there is action, the film picks up speed. The good news is, that the actual flying sequences look pretty realistic, considering that at one point Gable climbs onto the wing of a plane to get a good shot of a ship at sea that is on fire!
Other: Makeup, music, soundtrack, etc. all are solid, but these were not a big focus for films in the 30's, so there is nothing that stands out.
OVERALL: Check it out. I'm finding myself more and more of a Gable fan all the time, and this is the kind of movie that helps that image.
WARNING: These comments may reveal portions of the film plot.
"The Ace of Hearts" was a surprisingly interesting film. It had an interesting storyline and good acting. It also presented women in an organization that for 1921 was ahead of its time.
STORY: The story is very interesting. The idea of a group of people who try to kill "evil" businessmen because the businessmen care more about money than the world was not at all what I would expect from a 1921 film.
SETS/SPECIAL EFFECTS: Nothing special here. C'mon, it was 1921! On the other hand, the sets were reflected the setting -- Urban. And the final shot of the arm removed from the body was effectively done, again a surprise for 1921.
MUSIC/SOUNDTRACK: I had the opportunity to see the restored version of the film, with a new soundtrack by Vivek Maddala, who won a competition on TCM to create the track. The music was OUTSTANDING -- I can see how this 20-something won the competition. It set the tone, flowed with the action, and helped to increase the effect of the film.
MAKEUP/COSTUMES: Again, nothing special. One thing that did surprise me was that even though this was a silent, the actors didn't look "pasty" as they often did in early films.
ACTING/DIRECTING: Another surprise. Lon Chaney and all the cast did a good job, without resorting to the overacting so often seen in silents. The solemnity of the story was matched perfectly. The only time it goes over-the-top is when Chaney realizes he can never have the love of his life.
PARENTAL WARNING: None, with the exception of a dis-embodied arm at the end of the film, but there is no gore associated with the scene.
OVERALL: I liked this film. I found it memorable and surprising on many fronts, as already noted. I think the story was far ahead of its time, and would actually be an interesting setup for a remake today.
"The Ace of Hearts" was a surprisingly interesting film. It had an interesting storyline and good acting. It also presented women in an organization that for 1921 was ahead of its time.
STORY: The story is very interesting. The idea of a group of people who try to kill "evil" businessmen because the businessmen care more about money than the world was not at all what I would expect from a 1921 film.
SETS/SPECIAL EFFECTS: Nothing special here. C'mon, it was 1921! On the other hand, the sets were reflected the setting -- Urban. And the final shot of the arm removed from the body was effectively done, again a surprise for 1921.
MUSIC/SOUNDTRACK: I had the opportunity to see the restored version of the film, with a new soundtrack by Vivek Maddala, who won a competition on TCM to create the track. The music was OUTSTANDING -- I can see how this 20-something won the competition. It set the tone, flowed with the action, and helped to increase the effect of the film.
MAKEUP/COSTUMES: Again, nothing special. One thing that did surprise me was that even though this was a silent, the actors didn't look "pasty" as they often did in early films.
ACTING/DIRECTING: Another surprise. Lon Chaney and all the cast did a good job, without resorting to the overacting so often seen in silents. The solemnity of the story was matched perfectly. The only time it goes over-the-top is when Chaney realizes he can never have the love of his life.
PARENTAL WARNING: None, with the exception of a dis-embodied arm at the end of the film, but there is no gore associated with the scene.
OVERALL: I liked this film. I found it memorable and surprising on many fronts, as already noted. I think the story was far ahead of its time, and would actually be an interesting setup for a remake today.
WARNING: These comments may reveal portions of the film plot.
The big screen version of "The Grinch" works best when it sticks to the original story. While Ron Howard hasn't created a "great" film, it is still good, and most people will enjoy this diversion.
STORY/SCRIPT: Howard had to build on the original 25 minute cartoon, so many things have been added to the original story you probably remember from your childhood. This isn't bad, since you learn much about what made the grinch, "the Grinch." But it also makes for a more sinister character -- one that eats glass, for example.
SETS/SPECIAL EFFECTS: Wow!!! Whoville lives! You'll see the color combinations, the animated effects, all brought effectively to life. And everything is seamless enough that you'll probably find yourself forgetting it is special effects. This is one very effective part of the film.
MUSIC/SOUNDTRACK: Great fun. Especially effective is when the movie breaks into the classic, "You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch..." You'll want to sing along. But all the music is fun. Could the little girl have been dubbed? Sure, but why? Little kids are cute, and that includes their very off key singing, and I think that is what Howard was going for here. I thought it was fun.
MAKEUP/COSTUMES: Here is where the movie excels. Carrey BECOMES the Grich. Not just a live version, but the actual cartoon version. When he smiles, it goes from ear-to-ear, just as in the animated version. And it works both as a sinister smile and a friendly smile. And the residents of Whoville likewise are impressive. Everyone builds on the characters in the book, makes them look real, yet lets the actors skills come through.
ACTING/DIRECTING: Carrey is the best here. I found myself thinking of the Grinch, not Jim Carrey as "The Grinch." He shines through all those layers of makeup. The poor part is that the Grinch is either really bad or really good, and in the film becomes downright sinister. Result: he doesn't have many levels to play, so he doesn't. It's a bit flat as a result. Likewise, the rest of Whoville. The characters there don't quite make it either.
PARENTAL WARNING: Parents, remember that this film is a bit meaner than the cartoon. This includes the acting, the story, and the directing. The littlest kids may be bothered by some of this.
OVERALL: This isn't a classic, but it's not as bad as many have said. As one who went to see it to remember the cartoon, I found I should have stuck to the cartoon. That's okay. You'll probably have fun, you just won't need to go back to the film over and over.
The big screen version of "The Grinch" works best when it sticks to the original story. While Ron Howard hasn't created a "great" film, it is still good, and most people will enjoy this diversion.
STORY/SCRIPT: Howard had to build on the original 25 minute cartoon, so many things have been added to the original story you probably remember from your childhood. This isn't bad, since you learn much about what made the grinch, "the Grinch." But it also makes for a more sinister character -- one that eats glass, for example.
SETS/SPECIAL EFFECTS: Wow!!! Whoville lives! You'll see the color combinations, the animated effects, all brought effectively to life. And everything is seamless enough that you'll probably find yourself forgetting it is special effects. This is one very effective part of the film.
MUSIC/SOUNDTRACK: Great fun. Especially effective is when the movie breaks into the classic, "You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch..." You'll want to sing along. But all the music is fun. Could the little girl have been dubbed? Sure, but why? Little kids are cute, and that includes their very off key singing, and I think that is what Howard was going for here. I thought it was fun.
MAKEUP/COSTUMES: Here is where the movie excels. Carrey BECOMES the Grich. Not just a live version, but the actual cartoon version. When he smiles, it goes from ear-to-ear, just as in the animated version. And it works both as a sinister smile and a friendly smile. And the residents of Whoville likewise are impressive. Everyone builds on the characters in the book, makes them look real, yet lets the actors skills come through.
ACTING/DIRECTING: Carrey is the best here. I found myself thinking of the Grinch, not Jim Carrey as "The Grinch." He shines through all those layers of makeup. The poor part is that the Grinch is either really bad or really good, and in the film becomes downright sinister. Result: he doesn't have many levels to play, so he doesn't. It's a bit flat as a result. Likewise, the rest of Whoville. The characters there don't quite make it either.
PARENTAL WARNING: Parents, remember that this film is a bit meaner than the cartoon. This includes the acting, the story, and the directing. The littlest kids may be bothered by some of this.
OVERALL: This isn't a classic, but it's not as bad as many have said. As one who went to see it to remember the cartoon, I found I should have stuck to the cartoon. That's okay. You'll probably have fun, you just won't need to go back to the film over and over.
John Wayne stars as trail guide turned sheriff out to bring law and order to a small town. The local troublemaker in the town has shot Wayne's father in the back, establishing Wayne's motivation to take the job of sheriff.
The film is short -- 54 minutes -- and has an average story line. There are no surprises here, and the acting...well, the acting is wooden in most cases, even Wayne. Of course, all he had to do was play himself. The one exception is Al Bridge, who plays the head of a gang of thieves who was once nursed back to health by Wayne and so feels that he owes him a debt -- even if it goes against his lawless nature. Bridge plays the part well, even a little tongue-in-cheek, seeming to be smirking just below the surface in every scene.
As stated, the story line is predictable so there is no standout here either. The one thing that did impress me was the filming of the obligatory "big shootout" that ends the film. It is several minutes long -- between 10 and 15 minutes -- and is shot at night. In the course of the shootout the saloon is set on fire which quickly jumps to several more buildings. Early films were not known for the quality of night photography, so to see how well this fire was depicted in the film, the quality of the scenes, the staging -- everything was done well in my opinion. Cinematographers Harry Neumann and Gus Peterson did an excellent job of shooting this finale. If you are a film buff, you'll want to check out the film simply for this alone. Others might want to watch one of Wayne's earlier work. Otherwise, the film is an average western.
The film is short -- 54 minutes -- and has an average story line. There are no surprises here, and the acting...well, the acting is wooden in most cases, even Wayne. Of course, all he had to do was play himself. The one exception is Al Bridge, who plays the head of a gang of thieves who was once nursed back to health by Wayne and so feels that he owes him a debt -- even if it goes against his lawless nature. Bridge plays the part well, even a little tongue-in-cheek, seeming to be smirking just below the surface in every scene.
As stated, the story line is predictable so there is no standout here either. The one thing that did impress me was the filming of the obligatory "big shootout" that ends the film. It is several minutes long -- between 10 and 15 minutes -- and is shot at night. In the course of the shootout the saloon is set on fire which quickly jumps to several more buildings. Early films were not known for the quality of night photography, so to see how well this fire was depicted in the film, the quality of the scenes, the staging -- everything was done well in my opinion. Cinematographers Harry Neumann and Gus Peterson did an excellent job of shooting this finale. If you are a film buff, you'll want to check out the film simply for this alone. Others might want to watch one of Wayne's earlier work. Otherwise, the film is an average western.
In this movie, the story is truly the star. The writing is absolutely outstanding, and deserving of the Oscar it received. And it is particularly appropriate since the film focuses on two (now famous) writer/journalists, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post.
This film creates a fascinating suspense story that feels like it punches you in the gut. You want to cheer Woodward and Bernstein on, but you also realize that the story is true, and when they succeed it will drag the country through one of the worst periods of our political history. You almost wish you had the ear of President Nixon at the time to say, "Don't do it!" As the story unfolds, no one will say anything, no one will go on the record, the answer to every question seems to ask ten more questions at the same time. There are a list of players in the story that is a mile long, and there are times you wish you had a scorecard to keep everyone straight.
The acting I found to be a bit disappointing. Dustin Hoffman (as Bernstein) is particularly frustrating to me, with a pattern to his speech that often makes it difficult to understand what he is saying. Robert Redford (as Woodward) does better, though neither of the two seem to provide the dramatics that the story does. I don't know what I was looking for, but it seems as if I wanted them to be as drawn into the situation as I was. When they are told by Deep Throat that their lives may be in danger they seem surprised, where I was thinking to myself, "Get a clue! Didn't you guys know that?!?!." But perhaps that is because they didn't expect the worst from the government, and it is only as a result of Watergate and what these two reporters discovered that I "DO" expect the worst! I don't believe that Jason Robards was onscreen enough to create a true persona for his character of Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee, so I am surprised that he won the Best Supporting Actor in 1977. He deserves an Oscar for his acting skills, but I don't believe this is the film that was the standout demanding that award.
Parents, be prepared for some language in the film, though not as much as many films as of the year 2000. One odd note on that point -- I watched the film on American Movie Classics and found it odd that they would edit out language such as "bull****", but left in the word "godd***", which is used repeatedly in the film. Just seemed an odd editing choice.
This film creates a fascinating suspense story that feels like it punches you in the gut. You want to cheer Woodward and Bernstein on, but you also realize that the story is true, and when they succeed it will drag the country through one of the worst periods of our political history. You almost wish you had the ear of President Nixon at the time to say, "Don't do it!" As the story unfolds, no one will say anything, no one will go on the record, the answer to every question seems to ask ten more questions at the same time. There are a list of players in the story that is a mile long, and there are times you wish you had a scorecard to keep everyone straight.
The acting I found to be a bit disappointing. Dustin Hoffman (as Bernstein) is particularly frustrating to me, with a pattern to his speech that often makes it difficult to understand what he is saying. Robert Redford (as Woodward) does better, though neither of the two seem to provide the dramatics that the story does. I don't know what I was looking for, but it seems as if I wanted them to be as drawn into the situation as I was. When they are told by Deep Throat that their lives may be in danger they seem surprised, where I was thinking to myself, "Get a clue! Didn't you guys know that?!?!." But perhaps that is because they didn't expect the worst from the government, and it is only as a result of Watergate and what these two reporters discovered that I "DO" expect the worst! I don't believe that Jason Robards was onscreen enough to create a true persona for his character of Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee, so I am surprised that he won the Best Supporting Actor in 1977. He deserves an Oscar for his acting skills, but I don't believe this is the film that was the standout demanding that award.
Parents, be prepared for some language in the film, though not as much as many films as of the year 2000. One odd note on that point -- I watched the film on American Movie Classics and found it odd that they would edit out language such as "bull****", but left in the word "godd***", which is used repeatedly in the film. Just seemed an odd editing choice.
WARNING: These comments may reveal portions of this film's plot.
This film takes you on a variety of "up's and down's" as you watch a young couple that is struggling during the depression make it big when the wife encourages her husband to strike out on his own in advertising. This portion of the film runs slow, and the entire film seems very melancholy, until the plan works and suddenly the couple is rich, pulling you up.
Then you are pulled back down when the now successful husband hires an old high-school flame onto his staff and starts an affair. The wife won't grant the husband a divorce, however, pulling the mood back down again. To throw a curve into the mix, (as if there weren't enough already), the couple's son is struck by a car. This changes both their minds about the divorce -- now she wants one, and the husband doesn't!
The film ends on another high note, with a happy ending that appears from no where. Up to this point, many portions of the film have run rather slow, just as the beginning of the film. This happy ending appears from no where -- the couple reconciles in the courtroom at their divorce.
Overall, the film surprised me. For a 1934 film to focus on the depression, adultery, and a child struck by a car doesn't seem to be much of the "happy-go-lucky" films of that era when people didn't want to be reminded of their problems -- or so I understood.
Parents, the kids won't like this one since it is a drama. They probably shouldn't see it anyway, considering the philandering of the husband and the car hitting the child. The big draw here is the "other woman," played by Bette Davis. If you can catch it on cable, you might want to check this one out.
This film takes you on a variety of "up's and down's" as you watch a young couple that is struggling during the depression make it big when the wife encourages her husband to strike out on his own in advertising. This portion of the film runs slow, and the entire film seems very melancholy, until the plan works and suddenly the couple is rich, pulling you up.
Then you are pulled back down when the now successful husband hires an old high-school flame onto his staff and starts an affair. The wife won't grant the husband a divorce, however, pulling the mood back down again. To throw a curve into the mix, (as if there weren't enough already), the couple's son is struck by a car. This changes both their minds about the divorce -- now she wants one, and the husband doesn't!
The film ends on another high note, with a happy ending that appears from no where. Up to this point, many portions of the film have run rather slow, just as the beginning of the film. This happy ending appears from no where -- the couple reconciles in the courtroom at their divorce.
Overall, the film surprised me. For a 1934 film to focus on the depression, adultery, and a child struck by a car doesn't seem to be much of the "happy-go-lucky" films of that era when people didn't want to be reminded of their problems -- or so I understood.
Parents, the kids won't like this one since it is a drama. They probably shouldn't see it anyway, considering the philandering of the husband and the car hitting the child. The big draw here is the "other woman," played by Bette Davis. If you can catch it on cable, you might want to check this one out.