6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Fantastic script, ruined movie
15 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Fantastic original idea, probably a great script too. I hope some good film maker takes it and makes a good movie out of it some day in the future. This movie, as it is, has some fatal failures that make it an insult to the viewer's intelligence.

First of all, Having read all the reviews, I still don't understand why the same actress performs the roles of Claudia and Vera. Are we -the viewers- supposed to see that? IF not, hey, just a wig is not enough to fool us. If yes, are they supposed to be twins? then how comes Felix doesn't know that her longtime lover's twin sister lives right there, on the same street? No sense.

But the worst is yet to come. When Felix shoots 3 times at A MAN (Who is clearly taller than himself, and makes manly sounds)... But in the end we learn that it was in fact Claudia all the time! The thing is why didn't she tell him? Hey, it's me, your girlfriend! ... But no, instead she struggles to open the door but she won't say a single word, only growling and making man's noises. That is why he leaves the house convinced that he has killed a man, just the same as we viewers. So the final twist is so predictable, yet wrong. What a pity!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Was this guy ever funny?
15 March 2017
I live in Spain and I never watched his stand up, so this is my first contact with this actor and I can only judge him by this film. Now I'm not too picky when it comes to laughs, Adam Sandler, David Spade or even Rob Schneider will make my day, but this guy I just don't understand, he sends wrong vibes all the time and it's hard for me to think of someone less funny. Norm McDonald in Dirty work was awful, but this one I think is even worse. I only got to the end of the movie because of the lot of cameos with very funny people, such as Ben Stiller, Bill Maher or Vince Vaughn, but the movie itself is just depressing.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Capra at his worst
11 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was shot in only 4 weeks, and Claudette Colbert said it was the worst movie she had ever made. Of course she knew what she was talking about.

The usual sexual fantasies in Capra's catholic perverted mind come here in the fashion of a millionaire's daughter fairytale. The ridiculous, childish dialogs (except, of course, when it is about sex,), the multitude of goofs, mistakes, failures and, as a whole, a non-sense story plagued with out of time -humour? and mystical love, makes this one of the most disgusting movies in the history of cinema, to my taste.

Now Clark Gable can be completely wasted, then perfectly sober one minute later, that's never been a problem in Capra's movies. Being drunk is funny, of course. Also the bus driver can be transformed into a different actor after a song has been sung, Is it a miracle? Is it a goof? This movie is SO bad, who cares any more?
8 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Racism, male chauvinism, cheapest patriotism... It's Capra!
22 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
1933 was a very good year in the history of cinema. From musicals like 42nd Street or Footlight parade to comedies like Duck Soup (Marx Brothers) or Sons of the desert (Laurel & Hardy), from King Kong to the first acting appearances of John Wayne or Cary Grant, and Billy Wider's directing debut, Mauvaise grain.

There were also great movies by Greta Garbo, Mae West, and Barbara Stanwyck, in Baby face.

Now, if you're planning to watch a 1933 movie tonight and you don't know which one to choose, you can pick any of the above, according to your mood, and you won't be disappointed.

This one here, however, is pure Capra, which always means racism, male chauvinism, simple minded Christianity and cheap American patriotism. And yes, once more, here it is.

The plot is ridiculous, as expected from this director, but it makes some sort of sense at the beginning:

In the midst of a raging war with airplanes throwing bombs and hundreds of people dying in the streets, our all White American hero gets hit on his head by... a wooden stick. Only some seconds later, we watch how her girlfriend gets hit on her head too... by another wooden stick.

The virginal missionary girl, who's wearing a transparent blouse, showing her nipples, cries like Joan of Arc and speaks of Christ, while his wicked captor, the Chinese General, well, is doing his thing, I don't know what, because I can't avoid the fact that the Chinese General, the main character, is being played by a Swedish actor with tons of cheap paint on his face.

The virtuous Christian woman calls him a 'yellow swine' and that's it, pretty much. All of the Americans survive and only some thousands of Chinese die, so everything is good.

The ending, though melodramatic, is not as bad as Capra's usual, and the movie is not that long. Those are the only 2 reasons why I won't rate it 0. Barbara Stanwyck is not at her best, but she's OK.

There's so many wonderful movies to watch in your lifetime, please don't waste your time on this.
8 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Chevalier at his worst!
9 July 2012
The Princess says she's 22 years old, but she's so sad and she can't sleep at night... so the doctor recommends she must find a boyfriend "of his age". The answer, of course, is Maurice Chevalier, who was 44 at the time. Say no more.

Chevalier performing the young man he was 20 years ago, with his terrible voice and his terrible jokes that make us want him dead from minute one.

Is there any movie where he dies a terrible death? I'd love to watch that one!

Finally, the songs could have been written by my cat: "Good morning, Mrs Bendix, and how is your appendix?".

Oh, really? Yes, really, THAT bad.
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Shining (1997)
2/10
Very, very bad, too long, dull and boring
9 July 2012
We are told at the beginning of the book, and also in the movie, that Danny Torrance is a 5 year old boy who's learning to read. This is crucial to the rest of the story. Now, we all remember the wonderful young actor in the Kubrick's version, riding his small tricycle along the hotel corridors. The actor's name was Danny Lloyd and he was 7 at the time (1980), but he looked younger, he was believable, and that was one of the strongest points in the Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece.

Here in the 1997 version, we find that Danny is played by a 10 year old actor called Courtland Mead. Why did they do that? I'll never understand, and the whole story loses its meaning. You look at him and you know that he's not Danny. Of course there are no tricycle scenes here... how could he ride it at the age of ten? (laughs)

Rebecca De Mornay's performance is very poor, and Steven Weber does his best, but the shadow of Jack Nicholson is too long here. Still, Steven Weber is the only reason why I can't rate it 1/10.

I loved the book and I loved Kubrick's movie even more, but this is so dull that I can't recommend it to anyone, not even King's fanatics. The horror scenes are laughable, and the supernatural presences are nothing but bad jokes. Honestly, what harm could those (well... no spoilers) do?

This 1997 version was personally supervised by Stephen King, so it makes me think that a great part of the magic in his books is inside the reader's head, and not particularly inside his.

Better read the book and use your imagination, or watch Kubrick's version once again,'cause it's worth it, but don't waste 4.5 hours of your life watching this nonsense. All the magic is gone.
16 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed