teelbee Reviews

The Boys Are Back (2009)

refreshing and amazing, yet...

[7/10 · 10 October 2009]

Going in, I had utterly no idea of what to expect from this film. My companion didn't even tell me ~what~ movie we were going to see, much less any clues to what it was about. I don't think I've ever walked into a theater with so little idea of what to expect. All I knew was that Clive Owen had a role; but he plays such diverse roles, that gave me no clues.

But, I'm sure even those who knew lot more about this movie going in were surprised. The story provides lots of unexpected and unusual moments. I would anticipate the plot would turn one way, and it would find a whole new direction of it's own. It was refreshing to see a movie that didn't try to fit a mold - that has it's own unique view, rather than fitting into a genre.

The acting was quite amazing; really wonderful believable performances all around. Main characters and minor characters were so believably portrayed that watching the movie occasionally gave me as sense of being the peeping tom.

So those are truly amazing achievements in a movie, especially these days. And yet...

"Boys" has aspects of a great movie, but, sadly, it isn't great. The underlying Peter Pan theme was a bit overplayed. It felt as though the director kept whispering in your ear, saying, "Got it? Got it, yet?"

The storyline held surprises, drama, tension, and some great comic relief... along with more than a few tediously boring scenes that let the audience fall right out of the movie (enough of the raindrops on windows!). It's always a bad sign when I check my watch during a movie, and I checked my watch way too many times in this one.

So, go see it and expect to see something special in it. The specialness is there, even if the movie sometimes dumps you out of the scene and back into your theater seat.

The Time Traveler's Wife (2009)

quite different, poignant ... yet lacking the thrills of the book

[7/10 · 22 August 2009]

I rated it a 7, but actually think it's a bit shy of that. I read the book years ago, long enough to forget a lot. But, I remember the book as having much more action-oriented scenes and drama. Thus, more of a balance of sentimental and exciting scenes. I found the movie started dragging about 2/3s of the way through, but picked up a lot at the end.

I was ~very~ impressed with the casting of the young Clair. Between, the two Claires, they managed to capture the same look and nuance of expression. I was also very impressed with the casting and performances of the younger and older Alba. The girls did a terrific job with their roles.

Nanny McPhee (2005)

lots of good characters, good acting, and fairly well paced: 8 out 10,

[7/10 · 29 January 2006]

I thought it was a good-to-almost-great movie - lots of good characters, good acting, and fairly well paced: 8 out 10. I deducted points for the corny stuff with the donkey, the tea scene with Father and The Strumpet, and the pie fight. A little buffoonery goes a long way, yah know? Emma Thompson was brilliant as as the taciturn nanny - all the more amazing as she had few lines and the expressionless demeanor expected of the serving class in Victorian England. She had to convey the Nanny's power and strength of character just by the look in her eye.

Age has not dimmed Angela Landsbury's star. She showed us she could still interpret a role with an almost uncanny sense of the character's essence.

Colin Firth played the hapless father - a bit broadly in my opinion, but not ~too~ terribly over the top. Thomas Sangster (the boy from Love Actually) was terrific in the role of the eldest brother - ringleader of chaos. The other children all gave better than competent performances - even the little baby. Kelly MacDonald was just okay in her ingénue role.

As for the plot, it's not entirely original but an entertaining story even so. Motherless children running wayward - trampling over a series of unfortunate nannies and their father. Nanny McPhee, with her magical cane, aims to reform this dysfunctional family. Although it is not a musical, you will be reminded of Mary Poppins, the Sound of Music, and My Fair Lady as elements from all three tales are incorporated in Nanny McPhee.

While it may or may not become as treasured a classic as any of those three preceding movies, it is truly wonderful and well very worth going seeing.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Stripped to the bone! And, Casting... hello? hello?

[7/10 · 20 November 2005]

Firstly, I don't think it's a horrible movie. It's just that I've come to expect so much more from the Harry Potter movies.

I read that the movie makers considered making it into 2 movies, as the book is so long. Instead, they stripped it to the bone and made it into one long movie. They tried to cram too much into the 2.5 hour movie so there was not enough exposition or build-up to support the story. I couldn't see how this movie would make sense to people who had not read the book. I asked my companion (not a fiction reader) if he "got it"; and he admitted he was pretty clueless during much of the movie. It should have been so much better with more detailed story elements.

I was surprised they completely cut the characters Ludo Bagman and Winky, even though they had pretty significant roles in the book. I was looking forward to seeing them portrayed. If doing the story justice meant 2 movies, clearly that's what they should have done.

Casting in the first 2 movies was so spot-on! I could quibble, but really all the actors accurately reflected the characters in the books (the quibble, Hermione was a too pretty). Casting of ~new~ characters is the 3rd and 4th movies, on the other hand, ranges from "not deft" to "completely daft". The new Dumbledore doesn't do the character justice - he's too tense and and lacks authority. He doesn't have the air of calm self-possession that's so essential to the role. I find it jarring that the new Dumbledore lacks the confidence and wise-yet-humble presence of the novel's character. Similarly, I thought the depiction of Sirius Black was off balance in movie 3 (vs the book)- anger replacing the pathos of the novel's Sirius. But, I digress as he was not a part of this movie. I'm not comfortable with the movie version of Maxine. The Beauxbaton's head mistress was portrayed as a simpering romantic. In the book she is a woman with great strength of character with a bit of a chip on her shoulder when it comes to a romantic attachment with Hagrid. The worst character deviation was Mad-Eye Moody, who was shown as a clumsy oaf - a clown - on screen. In the book, he's talented and flinty, and his eccentricities were fully explained.

Speaking of Beauxbatons! What was with that entrance into the Great Hall? ... trooping in like little bluebirds, breathy gesturing Ahhhhh.... ahhhh...." as they flitted up the Grand Hall? They looked like something out of ~Madeline in London~! So weird. Another miscasting was the Fleur DeLacour character. The movie Fleur was shown as a regular sporty girl-next door type; whereas she is supposed to be part Veela, and thus more exotic, more beautiful, and slightly other worldly. Victor Krum was better cast as a steely Eastern European, but what happened to the slump-shouldered, toe-in footed grouch from the book? In the book, he was a bit of an anti-hero, on screen he was movie star beautiful.

The tone of the movie is dark and gloomy throughout The few attempts at a bit of comedy relief didn't do much to lighten things. For example, instead of being comical, Ron's angst at having to wear a frumpy set of dress robes related all to well the pain of self-consciousness suffered by teens. Actually, it was a quite a good bit of acting, but it didn't serve the purpose of providing a lighter episode as it did in the book.

It's just not "magical" like the prior movies.

Still, I think many people may like it better than the previous movies as it is more like a typical, action-oriented film. But, I don't go to Harry Potter movies to see "typical".

The Big Lebowski (1998)

funny, but not altogether satisfying

[6/10 · 4 June 2004]

I enjoyed many parts of the movie - quite a lot, in fact. Jeff Bridges as the laid back "luzer" dude was brilliant. John Goodman, a 'Nam Vet', more than did his character justice. Some of the situations were really funny and made sense. Some made no sense and were funny. Other situations just made no sense. As a whole piece, it's a really flawed movie.

Most of the situations revolved around the whereabouts of $1 million in ransom money. The ingenious plot twists usually hang together, but not always. What was the point of the volkswagon dectective? What did that contribute? Nothing - it was just another point of confusion. The nihilist gang (which at least provided some funny dialogs) never fit with the rest of the movie, which was irritating. The cowboy narrator never fit, either; although I found his folksy drawl to be comforting.

This movie does a seriously poor job with it's female characters. The male lead characters are well developed, and most of the male secondary characters are well drawn also. The women characters are all flat and bizarre - more like creatures from outer space than real people. The millionaire's "trophey wife", Bunny, is a dumb blond ho. The adult daughter Maude comes off as mechanical and inhuman.

So, we have flashes of brilliance interspersed with a fair amount of gimcrack movie making. There is no ending, to speak of - the story just stops for no reason. Many situations set up earlier are left dangling and unresolved. In fact, the whole thing about what happens to the missing million dollars is just forgotten.

I think most people will find something to laugh at and something to like when they watch this movie. But, it's really not a satisfying movie experience.

Secondhand Lions (2003)

Very funny and well done

[10/10 · 29 May 2004]

This heartwarming film never slides into schmaltzy sentimentality, as it so easily could have done in the hands of a lesser director.

This is NOT a formula Hollywood family story. The story of two has-been "uncles" and a throw-away child depicts honor and noble values in a most entertaining way - without the usual wisecracking, annoying "character" built into so many family films.

It's very well played (Michael Caine, Robert Duval, Haley Joel Osment) and very well directed. The scenery is gorgeous and the fantasy segments are exciting and beautiful.

definitely not just another movie - 10 out of 10.

Secondhand Lions (2003)

Very funny and well done

[10/10 · 29 May 2004]

This heartwarming film never slides into schmaltzy sentimentatlity, as it so easily could have done in the hands of a lesser director.

This is NOT a formula Hollywood family story. The story of two has-been "uncles" and a throw-away child depicts honor and noble values in a most entertaining way - without the usual wisecracking, annoying "character" built into so many family films.

It's very well played (Michael Caine, Robert Duval, Haley Joel Osment) and very well directed. The scenery is gorgeous and the fantasy segments are exciting and beautiful.

definitly not just another movie - 10 out of 10.

Lost in Translation (2003)

so very boring... boring... boring... boring... boring...

[1/10 · 16 May 2004]

You'd be doing well if you managed to stay awake through the whole film. There was no life, no story, no interest, and no one to care about. I'm not stupid - I have a college degree with a minor in English, and I have a fair amount of experience analyzing fiction. I'm at a loss to explain how this movie came to garner any positive reviews.

The Coppela clan must be very influential indeed for this flat as a pancake film to get nominated and awarded anything other that worst movie of the decade.

Curiously, the only character with any dimension was the wife - and we only know her through her phone conversations with her husband. Isn't that strange? She's never even on screen, and she has more impact than the gang of sleepwalkers that slug along the all but non-existent story line.

Don't be fooled by the good reviews and awards - you will most likely hate this movie and regret investing the time it takes to watch it.

7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)

One of the most memorable films I've ever seen

[9/10 · 26 July 2003]

Quite amazing, really. It's been almost 40 years since I saw this movie and I still think about it and ponder. Tony Randall's portrayal of each persona was as awe inspiring a performance as one could ever hope to see. I well remember the cameo of him in the circus audience, just shaking his head. So very droll!

The Lady and the Highwayman (1988 TV Movie)

If you're thinking of buying the DVD...

[3/10 · 5 January 2003]

Don't! Oh, I know it's cheap - looks like a real bargain, eh? NOT! Put the wallet down and don't throw away your money. It's not even worth the $1.25 it routinely lists for on EBAY and HALF.com.

In a decent print, this might be a fun bit of fluff. But, the DVD print is far from decent. It looks for all the world like an old re-copied and re-copied video tape. The poor video quality completely spoils the viewing experience - it's flat, muddy, blurry, and dark. I've never seen anything even remotely this bad in any retail video product, much less a DVD.

It wasn't the greatest material to begin with - the script, dialogue, and acting are a bit dodgy and *quite* stagy. Some worthwhile stars are not allowed to shine (Oliver Reed, Hugh Grant, Michael York, John Mills). However, the costumes and sets are really quite nice - pity we can't appreciate them in this release.

The Jokers (1967)

Extreme Pranksterism - funny and sharp!

[9/10 · 2 December 2002]

Even though I knew the story and ending from reading "spoilers" this movie held my attention completely. The two main characters are clever boys, and the pace is mostly quick moving.

The interplay between David and Michael, the two brothers (played by Oliver Reed and Michael Crawford), is intriguing and amusing. This is a terrific movie and it should be released on DVD with a Michael Winner commentary.

The Curse of the Werewolf (1961)

A classic - very dramatic and poignant

[9/10 · 2 December 2002]

A very poignant portrayal of a tragic and undeserved fate. Not your average horror movie, by any means. This is a well-done production that focuses on the human tragedy and heartbreak of the gentle boy who, to his horror, grows up to become a werewolf.

If you want mindless gore for the sake of gore, this is not the movie for you - it's a tragic drama. This is a skillful retelling of an ancient tale. The horror is not in it's bloodshed, but in the terrible fate of an innocent boy's infection with "the curse of the werewolf". His bittersweet romance with Christina, with it's promise of redemption, punctuates the cruelty of his curse.

The film is very well paced with lots of high drama underscored by great characterization and acting through out. Oliver Reed's performance as Leon, the gentle young man cursed with the savagery of a werewolf, is powerful and compelling. Clifford Evan's gives a strong performance as Don Corledo, Leon's stepfather.

It's a classic movie, and a better example of this genre would be hard to find.

Ein Unbekannter rechnet ab (1974)

Very gripping whodunit

[8/10 · 13 November 2002]

After reading some of the other reviews here, I was not expecting much. So, I was very pleasantly surprised to find that this whodunit kept me glued to my seat and guessing the whole way through. It had the right air about it of hidden danger and bewilderment. Taking it as a period piece; I think it's very fair to say that all of the performers gave credible performances, and I especially enjoyed Oliver Reed's portrayal of the sexy and debonair Hugh Lombard.

One Russian Summer (1973)

A tale of pre-Revolutionary Russia: kind of terrible - on many levels

[4/10 · 22 October 2002]

A depiction of a terribly sad period in human history - a time of woe, oppression, and revenge. To its credit, the movie's settings, costumes, and social culture seem to be very accurately recreated. Social history buffs who want to gain a flavor for this period would probably be quite impressed. Still, for the entertainment seekers among us, historical accuracy doesn't mean attractive or beautiful.

The movie, which is set in pre-revolutionary Russia, portrays the conflicts within a wealthy family, as well as the broader conflicts between Russian serfs and the oppressive ruling class. But, it's difficult to feel that either side in the class conflict is right, as the serfs and renegade Cossacks are as cruel and greedy as their overlords.

It's also difficult for the viewer to care about of the characters -- they are either unhappy and cruel (Palizyn, his wife, and Vadim) or shallow (Uri, and Irene, Palizyn's son and foster daughter). The head of the family, Palizyn, is a landowner and despot. Oliver Reed portrays the many opposing facets of the Palizyn character's personality well -- his cruelty, his affection and love of fun, and his apparent dismay at finding himself in love with his foster daughter. It is, in fact, difficult to hate him as he should be hated for his evil deeds.

Vadim is the secret troublemaker who gains Palizyn's confidence as a trusted servant. I believe he is supposed to be the hero and I think we are supposed to believe his claims. But, the character is so devious and manipulative, that I kept wondering if his story was just a ruse. In any event, he's not very likable as a hero. Not to spoil it, but Vadim's reaction to the debacle in the final scene makes little sense.

I suspect part of the problem with this movie is the uneven direction, which often has the characters behaving inconsistently for the circumstances. Because of the emotional confusion this creates, there is no cathartic release at the end of the movie. You just go away shaking your head and feeling kind of sick.

The Hunting Party (1971)

Exciting and very dramatic western

[10/10 · 21 October 2002]

This movie had me on the edge of my seat from start to finish. As wild westerns go, this ranks near the top. It's very well paced, and the acting is superb. Plot twists and the unfolding of well-developed characters sustain the movies' tension to the end.

Oliver Reed is stunning as Frank Calder, the tough leader of an outlaw gang who wants to learn to read. Thinking she is a schoolteacher who can teach him his letters, he kidnaps Melissa (Candice Bergman), the wife of the very wealthy Brant Rudger (Gene Hackman). Rudger, a cruel sadist and absolute dictator, talks his wealthy cronies into hunting down the outlaw gang and picking them off one by one with high-powered rifles. But he proposes it more as a game of revenge or sport than out of love or fear for his wife's safety.

Calder and Rudger are both brutal men, but Calder values human life and relationships while the Rudger cares only for indulging his passions at any cost. Though his friends start to sicken of the game and beg him to stop, Rudger won't be deterred from the game.

As the movie develops, Oliver Reed's scenes crackle with tension, energy, and a depth of sexuality that may surprise those who are more familiar with his roles as the heavy or antagonist. Gene Hackman's character brings a single-minded intensity to the movie that has rarely been matched on screen. Candice Bergman gives a feisty performance and carries off a difficult role very well. Her character is caught, both literally and figuratively in a war of emotions, in a terrifying conflict.

I agree with the prior reviewer who says this needs to be released on DVD! With so many bad movie DVD's out there, I'm surprised this one's potential has been overlooked for so long. Frankly, I would love to see it on the big screen.

The Trap (1966)

wonderfully portrayed story

[10/10 · 20 October 2002]

I only discovered this film recently on a rather mediocre quality pan-and-scan VHS tape. It was a new and factory-sealed in the original box; but, alas, I find many old movies are kind of flat and faded looking on VHS or DVD.

That's a real pity with this movie, because it is just gripping with well-played characters, beautiful scenery, and some heart-stopping action scenes.

Besides all that, this film has, perhaps, the tenderest and most passionate kiss ever recorded on film. Oliver Reed fans, here's your chance to see a love scene that works ((albeit, a bit short by today's standards).

Hannibal Brooks (1969)

Yes, a little different, but it's a terrific movie.

[9/10 · 15 October 2002]

You've already read the plot, where an English POW risks his life to conduct a bombed-out zoo elephant, Lisa, from Germany to a safe haven in Switzerland during World War II. Despite the doubts that plot line might suggest, this is a great movie that held my attention the whole way through. An excellent cast gives life to a wide range of characters; and you really do come to understand their actions and care about them.

Oliver Reed, as "Hannibal" Brooks, brings a light touch and a wry sense of humor to this role that blends both comedy and drama. It pays to listen closely to the by-play between Brooks and his fellow POWs and the zoo staff, and German soldiers he encounters - there's some really funny stuff here. However, as a war film, it's not all comedy - there are fighting sequences and the film includes some spectacular explosions and pyrotechnics.

One thing I liked about the movie is that it portrays the decency of common people; the ordinary people they met along the way who took time to be caring and kind -- in contrast to the horrors of war all around them.

Michael J. Pollard, as Packy, an American POW who has ambitions of military glory, is kind of strange. But, then Michael J. Pollard is always strange, so I guess that's what they wanted for his role. I would have preferred to see it played "straight", but I think the strangeness works in this movie anyway.

This is a very enjoyable movie - I hope it gets wider distribution on video/DVD so that more people can enjoy it.