stancym-1 Reviews

Family: A Child Is Given (1977) Season 3, Episode 11

Portrait of a very close family in crisis

[10/10 · 24 September 2023]

Thi s episode is a good example of how much all the Lawrence family members love and support each other, as well as how they handle fear and stress differently. It is also the first episode to spotlight Nancy and Jeff's relationship AFTER Nancy rejected Jeff some months before. She had won him back, then he proposed (probably he pushed marriage too soon, they had only just renewed their relationship). Anyway, Nancy led Jeff on, whether she intended to or not. In this episode they are still trying to be friends and get over that debacle. When Timmy gets sick, Nancy goes to pieces and strikes out at Jeff unfairly. Her torment about her son possibly dying is certainly understandable though. Its a nice episode about people coming together in a time of crisis. Who wouldn't want the support that Nancy has? Meredith Baxter and John Rubinstein turn in their usual strong performances as Nancy and Jeff. So do Sada Thompson and James Broderick as Nancy's parents.

Family: Change of Heart (1977) Season 3, Episode 4

Love is Complicated! So is Divorce!

[10/10 · 8 September 2023]

This is a realistic portrait of what love, marriage and divorce can do to people. Nancy is not even aware, or trying to be, of exactly what she is doing or why. But the themes of lingering sexual passion/attraction, not letting go, loneliness and insecurity, wanting to relive the past but have the past turn out better, they make sense and happen in real life. This is one of my favorite episodes of a loved series. All the actors do a fine job, especially Meredith Baxter and John Rubinstein who carry the weight of this episode. I found the end heartbreaking in that Nancy has really hurt Jeff by not being honest with herself and thus, not being honest with him. My guess is that the writers/producers thought Jeff and Nancy never making their marriage work made for better drama. They wanted Nancy to be single most episodes. But the episodes with her and Jeff are more compelling and bittersweet than those with her and her numerous other male admirers. Could be partly because John Rubinstein is very attractive, a very good actor, and plays well off of Meredith Baxter. If you watch the series, don't miss this episode. I deliberately leave "Birney" off her name because in her autobiography, its clear she suffered domination and abuse being married to David Birney.

Family: Such a Fine Line (1980) Season 5, Episode 9

disappointed in the Jeff storyline

[6/10 · 4 August 2023]

It was rewarding to watch Michael J. Fox guest star in a storyline involving his crush on Kate. However, I had always had an affection and sympathy for Jeff's character. He truly loved Nancy, always, and his son, Timmy. I did not think he would become a person who goes into debt buying drugs for a band. There was previously the background established that Jeff had money. Had the money all stopped? Maybe his parents cut him off from some allowance he had been receiving. He was no longer working for his dad, to get that salary, either. But we just have to assume, there is no discussion of why Jeff was rich and now has money problems. I think this is the end of Jeff in the series, and I dont think it was a convincing way to treat his character, as someone who has descended into being someone else rather than the Jeff we knew for several seasons. Whatever Jeff's flaws, I doubt he would have become an illegal drug dealer. And would he have put his friend and former brother in law in jeopardy the way he did? The writers "disposed" of Jeff in an unsatisfactory manner.

Madame Bovary (2014)

UNWORTHY OF FLAUBERT, OUTRIGHT BAD REMAKE

[1/10 · 15 December 2020]

I have been too busy to write reviews of late, but this is so bad I had to review it to spare others a waste of their time. I just saw this film, and really, it cries out for you to watch the ORIGINAL remake with Jennifer Jones, Van Heflin, and Louis Jourdan. Black and white, directed by the great Vincent Minnelli. 1951 I think. Good cast, beautifully filmed. Find it and watch it.

A mere sample of what's wrong with THIS film: Emma is very miscast. She cannot pronounce the French names of people or towns. Yet she is supposed to be French. She has very little depth. She is not as pretty as her husband Charles, or one could at least argue that. Emma should be an outwardly romantic, and certainly a beautiful and very alluring figure. She is not in this film. The character of Charles is TOTALLY miscast and misdirected. Charles is supposed to be ordinary, clueless, maybe attractive in a way (I actually always have the hots for Van Heflin in any film) but certainly Charles is not supposed to be dashingly handsome! And where is the interplay between Charles and Emma to show his bewilderment about her? Where is his strong sense of inadequacy as a husband and as a doctor? Heflin's Charles in the Minnelli version is a different, and much more touching and real character.

Plot points: Emma just happens to have poison on her dressing table at all times? There is no explanation of why or when it got there.. Her sense of desperation before the suicide scene is not conveyed well, and the whole suicide scene is flat. We dont even get to experience the reaction by others or the consequences of Emma's causing her husband to lose all his property and his home. I could say more, but just SEE THE MINNELLI VERSION AND SKIP THIS ONE.

The Favourite (2018)

So Inaccurate the Director Should Have Used Fictional Women

[3/10 · 16 May 2020]

To tell this kind of story...

why make it about Queen Anne., Sarah Churchill, the Duchess of Marlborough, and Abigail? These are real people whose lives can be researched.

Queen Anne loved her husband and had many children by him. That is not shown in the film at all. Sarah was PASSIONATELY in love with her husband, the Duke, Winston Churchill's ancestor and one of the greatest military strategists and leaders of all time. Sarah was NOT bisexual or gay. Abigail Masham, not sure if she had "carnal knowledge" of Queen Anne or not, so I will give the film a pass on that one.. A juicier story makes for more money at the box office.

If you want to see a somewhat more accurate portrayal of the Sarah-Anne relationship, get The First Churchills, a TV series from the BBC, from your library's interlibrary loan or Amazon or wherever. I think the release date was 1971. No question though that Sarah is portrayed with a favorable bias in that series. In real life, apparently she threatened to "go public" about a supposed affair between Abigail and the Queen after the Queen totally dumped her. The Queen retaliated by cutting off funding for the Duke's massive palace which was not completed yet.

The problem is that the film has many other inaccuracies and absurd notions. Anne was a few years YOUNGER than Sarah, in this film she is quite a bit older. Sarah had light hair, they couldn't even bother to put the correct wig color on the actress Rachel Weisz. No one attempted to murder Sarah in real life. The men are not portrayed realistically at all. It's fine to take a few liberties with history, but The Favourite goes way beyond this. If it were being played strictly for comedy, that would excuse this, but it is not. It is too dark for that. The Blackadder series was better, that played British history entirely for laughs and therefore no accuracy at all was expected.

Also, I agree with reviewers who thought the language and swearing were too geared toward 2018 moviegoers. Why not just do a film about a Lesbian triangle and woman power then, why revise history yet again to this extent?

Flaming Star (1960)

Presley does a fine job acting here

[10/10 · 19 February 2020]

I was very surprised by this Western. It is really touching, bittersweet, well done, and features an excellent acting role by Elvis Presley. It made me a bit sad to think what roles he might have had, if he had not been under the thumb of that exploiter, Colonel Tom Parker. Parker cared only about easy money, not quality roles for Elvis.

Flaming Star is a good film for our times: prejudice and loyalties dividing friends and family are running themes. It does not make out either whites or the American Indian tribe (as it was called THEN) to be entirely good or bad. People are people, all flawed.

The plot is not predictable, not even the romantic angle is what I would have predicted. Even near the end, the plot is not predictable. A real plus.

I was very moved by the message of the movie: prejudice hurts everyone. Betraying someone's trust brings hurt on the betrayed and the betrayer. The movie does this through good storytelling, not hitting us over the head which I find often happens in contemporary movies. It does not scream the message to be overly political, but the message comes through and we are saddened.

I am so glad I stumbled onto this movie while I was watching a series of westerns in tribute to Kirk Douglas. This happened to be on the same channel.

When the Boys Meet the Girls (1965)

So bad it is almost beyond belief

[1/10 · 21 September 2019]

Nothing in this film is remotely believable. Different genres and eras of music appear in the same settings......along with a stand up comic duo doing an overlong routine that isn't funny. It doesn't fit with the plot, and neither do many of the other performers. Wonderful Gershwin songs seem very out of place juxtaposed with an orange Nevada ranch, the English rock group Herman's Hermits,and Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs. Pick any two of those and you have incongruity. It is positively weird how nothing in this film makes sense or has a logical thread.

Connie Francis has a nice singing voice but that is not enough to carry the film. Harve Presnell as someone else said has a bad toupee, is too tall for her, and looks too old to be even a fairly recent college student.

Louis Armstrong and Liberace also appear, and what do they have to do with what is going on? The movie is not about stage life in a casino or about hiring or dealing with great performers or the performing life, in any way.

This might have been so bad it was campy fun, but alas, I did not have fun. I just could not believe how bad it was. I think my favorite bit was when Connie races back to the ranch on her horse and is thrown off it into a car. The director forgot to include the horse in the scene after the cut, so it looks like the horse has literally evaporated into thin air. One second there is a horse, and the next second, no horse! If this movie evaporates into thin air, it is no one's loss. Whose career was furthered in ANY WAY by this stinker?

While You Were Sleeping (1995)

I am not a curmudgeon, really I'm not!

[3/10 · 27 August 2018]

I've seen numerous romantic comedies from the 30s and onward, so i do have high standards. I do study film and film history, as a hobby. I had never watched this movie until today. It had high ratings and I thought I would give it a whirl.

Oh dear...this is very formulaic, very predictable stuff. Do you really believe that someone who looks like Sandra Bullock and is nice to boot, would be stuck with that boring job, if she wanted something else? Would she really be alone with a cat? No one dating her, no close girlfriends even? It is hard to believe.

Sandra's character is dishonest throughout almost the entire film. Even if you get past THAT, the family that takes to her under her false pretense is a vehicle for comical facial expressions and punchlines. The family members do not seem like real people and the son's crisis with his dad is solved in two seconds. Trouble is, the writer of the father-son scene is NOT Neil Simon.

At the end, Sandra declares her love for the Bill Pullman character who is in love with her, too. He just lets her walk out of the aborted wedding service? Like, you dont know if he will want her after she has lied to everyone? of course you know! In fact, there is nothing surprising in this whole movie.

I guess I have just seen too many good romcoms. Clever, witty, edgy, not totally predictable. A far better romcom is Sunday in New York for example. Another one is Pillow Talk. I didn't find "Sleeping" funny, just trite, all formula. Sorry.

Flipper's New Adventure (1964)

The most anti-English film outside of BRAVEHEART and THE PATRIOT?

[2/10 · 21 June 2018]

Both of those caricature films are courtesy of Mel Gibson, but what is the excuse here? The English family here are just so awful! Dumb, although wealthy enough to have a yacht and therefore supposedly well educated. They are mistrusting and clueless beyond belief. The elder daughter actually thinks a dolphin is a 'sea monster" --this is in the early sixties! She seems just as stupid at the end of the film as she does at the beginning, and not sorry for anything she has said or done, like hacking away at Flipper when he tried to help. Even toward the end she still wants to get away from him. None of the English family seems resourceful, brave, bright, or particularly grateful to Sandy and Flipper when they turn out to be saviors. As for Sandy, the kid with the beloved pet Flipper, he originally takes off without much food or water, without protective clothing, and how far does he think he is going to GET before he needs these things? He doesn't come across as any genius either....the only one worth watching in this disaster is Flipper. And as for the corny music, PLEASE. Really sappy music and lyrics. Sorry!

Four Daughters (1938)

mixed feelings about this especially compared to remake Young At Heart

[7/10 · 4 May 2018]

All we reviewers seem to agree that John Garfield shines as an antihero/nonconformist in his breakthrough role. And it is a good film.... however! Musically, Sinatra at piano and singing, throughout the film YOUNG AT HEART not just in the first scenes, works better than Garfield not shown AT ALL musically, after the first third of the film. There is also a better musical AND romantic connection in YOUNG AT HEART, between Sinatra and Doris Day, than there is between Garfield and Lane in FOUR DAUGHTERS. Watch them back to back and see what I mean. The scenes in Micky and Ann's (Garfield and Lane's) apartment and in the restaurant they visit right afterward, don't suggest much love or chemistry between them. There is no touching at all. Garfield even makes a crack about how he might split on her for a touring job, if he had the money to do it. She replies calmly that she wouldn't be surprised, or something like that. Not romantic! I think there is more love depicted in the same scenes with Sinatra and Day. And then there is the issue of Mickey Borden being apparently unemployable. What? He was good enough for Felix (Jeffrey Lynn character) to hire him to orchestrate a piece for which Felix won a prize. Yet he cannot get a job even playing piano in New York City? And he's referred to as not really talented, later in the film. That does not compute for me. He wouldn't have been hired!

Now, I think one could make the case that FOUR DAUGHTERS has the stronger ending.....with Mickey dying and freeing up Ann to marry Felix, who is obviously still in love with her even though he was jilted at the altar. Sinatra had that much clout that he could force a sappy, happy ending to Young At Heart, happy for HIS character! But other than that, I think that YOUNG AT HEART is better in some ways. Doris Day turning to Barney (Sinatra) and LOVING him, while still not over the Felix character (now called Alex and played by the always attractive and endearing Gig Young), is more believable in this version.

It is also better to set the Garfield/Sinatra character up as quite talented, which is only successfully done in YOUNG AT HEART. That makes his pessimism, malaise and frustration more interesting and poignant.

Both May Robson and Ethel Barrymore are superb in their roles as the aunt.

Get Out (I) (2017)

Get Out before you watch this movie!

[2/10 · 31 March 2018]

SAD. It started off OK if you can swallow the "all white people are hypocrites, all white people are phony," "all white people are not trustworthy" theme.....but then it slipped into a rip off of three movies: The Stepford Wives (the original), Rosemary's Baby, and The Omen. Loosely speaking.....and the first two are infinitely better films. What really earned it a TWO rating for me was the last part, where it deteriorated into a pure slasher film. Pure gore, pure horror. And totally ridiculous. This was totally unnecessary for us to get the point. This is why the other mentioned films were far superior.

Best script of the year according to Oscar? Hard to believe. Hip and PC and Hollywood-pleasing does not mean outstanding writing is assured.

The lead male actor was very good in his role not to mention eye candy. I will look for him in future films that are more worthy of his talents.

Romeo & Juliet (II) (2013)

Juliet was the weakest link

[4/10 · 26 March 2018]

It's good that Romeo and Juliet is a play that keeps getting redone so that new generations can appreciate it. The language is truly beautiful and the story eternally compelling and addictive. However, in spite of some good actors, sets, and scenery, this one is quite disappointing. I agree with other reviewers who mention that much of the original text has been either cut or rewritten to no good purpose. There is time for lots of kissing but that means sacrificing some of the best poetry in the world. And yes, I agree it is a problem when Romeo is more beautiful than Juliet. But my biggest complaint is that Hailee Steinfeld just is not up to the task of Juliet. I already knew her lines or I would not have followed most of them. Steinfeld swallows words, rushes words, mumbles words. Poetry is spoken too fast or thrown away as if the actress doesn't fully understand what she is saying. I rate it 4 stars instead of 3 because Paul Giamatti, Lesley Manville, Natasha McElhone and Damian Lewis handle the language with aplomb and perform well. Douglas Booth as Romeo is not exceptional but handles the language better than poor Miss Steinfeld does. Also I rate it 4 because visually, the film is quite beautiful.

Blood Simple (1984)

Put me in a bad mood that I had to shake off

[1/10 · 22 March 2018]

The whole thing did not make sense. The way everyone seemed to make decisions seemed extremely unlikely and far fetched without the necessary humor to make that work. I agreed with the reviewer who stated that one is unlikely to bury a body in an open field with a lit up house not far away. Especially with tire tracks leading to the scene. Then there is the matter of the husband who hires a sleazy detective to kill his wife and her lover. He is shot apparently dead, certainly bleeding a LOT, and we are supposed to believe he suddenly comes to life after hours of not moving and after hours of being dragged away from the murder scene in a car, all the while not moving? Suddenly he has the energy to get out of the car, crawl in the road, and start firing shots at the wife's lover to boot? and wait, he's dragged some more and dumped in a pit dug by the lover, and he is still alive enough to fire MORE shots? As for the leads, the lovers, how did these two ever get together? They tell each other NOTHING, explain NOTHING, and have no communication or affection of any kind in the whole movie. You really dont LIKE any character in this film, and for some that may not matter. It did to me. There is no humor to lighten this dark, depressing piece, and there was too much stupidity for me. Disagreeable and distasteful film. FARGO is a far superior film.

Betrayed (1954)

LOVE espionage films AND WW2 films BUT....

[5/10 · 24 December 2017]

"This dog just does not hunt." Not just that it is contrived and unbelievable in places.....the characters are not believable, none of them. Clark Gable is aging and looks and sounds totally American. Not at all like a Dutch intelligence officer who's still on his game. Lana Turner sounds American though she too is supposed to be Dutch. In her case, we are supposed to believe that being stuck in hiding for days in a windmill with no amenities or frills, or trekking through rough countryside, she still has perfectly coiffed hair and red lipstick that never wears off even a little, the entire time.

And then we have the third lead, Victor Mature, also sounding very American. At least Wilfred Hyde White and Louis Calhern and the wonderful, not well known Ian Carmichael sound British and are supposed to be, in the film. I just think having all three leads being so apple pie American pretending to be Dutch who have never set foot in America, is too much to impose on the viewer's "suspension of disbelief." Victor Mature's character development (want to avoid spoilers) that affects the plot heavily also seems "a bridge too far."

Many, many better spy films out there!

Promises in the Dark (1979)

Totally unrealistic

[3/10 · 17 November 2017]

First, the dying girl does not tell her parents her wishes about dying, or about being kept in a vegetative state, but she tells her doctor? She has attentive and loving parents throughout, yet she only tells Marsha Mason, her doctor?

Second, the doctor played by Mason appears to have no other patients. She really spends all her time on the dying Kathleen Beller character, making frequent house calls, yet she is on staff at a city hospital?

Third, Would the Marsha Mason character really ruin her career by pulling the plug on the dying patient when there is a nurse right there that is sure to report her? Not to mention that the parents have not given permission for this? This doctor would lose her medical license for overruling the parents' decision to keep their daughter alive on a respirator. Now, if the nurse and parents were not present and she pulled the plug, she could claim the girl died, put the plug back in and the euthanasia could go undetected. But that isn't what happens here. She literally throws away her career and possibly is sent to jail. Does this seem likely?

Fourth, the concept of a doctor who is that emotionally involved, who makes one patient practically her life, and gets upset a lot, is very Hollywood and Marcus Welby-like; it does not ring true. Doctors MUST stay mainly professional or they cannot do their job and they are too busy to spend all their time on one patient. Plus, why would the parents not have this role? This film makes the doctor into a parent.

All this said, Marsha Mason is a superb actress. I want to read why she stopped working on screen so long ago, she could have made the transition to character parts if the lead roles were no longer offered. Perhaps she chose to do something else.

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

Worthy Remake, Full of Style and Visual Beauty

[10/10 · 14 November 2017]

I am a big fan of the 1974 version with Albert Finney as Poirot and directed by Sydney Lumet. I read that Sir Kenneth Branagh wanted to do a fresh version with a different take so he deliberately did not view the 1974 film. His Poirot is a bit sweeter and more sentimental than the one written for, and acted by, Finney. However, I find him very convincing! There are touches of humor, especially in the first half of the film. The second half is more serious as Poirot realizes he must solve the crime and has limited time to do so.

The cast was excellent, and the scenery whether real or CGI was beautiful. The opulence and grandeur of this kind of train travel in the 1930s came across vividly. If anything, these characters are a bit more touching, a bit less campy and "over the top" than the characters in Lumet's film. That's not a bad thing, it is just a different approach. Even at the end, Poirot displays a little unintentional humor because with his perfectionism, he cannot help himself.

It is a very enjoyable film, and Branagh is a fine actor, always. He makes the film work. That and the sight of alps at sunset!

Trader Horn (1973)

Huge Fan of Taylor but not in THIS film

[3/10 · 11 November 2017]

I couldn't even watch more than a half hour of it because it glorifies killing magnificent and endangered species like leopards and elephants. Rod Taylor could play sophisticates, rough guys, idealists, military types, anything but a song and dance man really. He was fine in comedy opposite Doris Day in THE GLASS BOTTOM BOAT for example. But here, he is a rugged, jaded antihero in a below average script (what I could stay long enough for anyway) with a dated theme or two: killing wild animals and profiting from selling to Germans in World War One. Danger in Africa it seemed would be the running motif....been done before and since. Rod Taylor should have stayed a movie star, movies like this may indeed explain why he later took smaller parts and often was seen on TV instead. Even after a half hour, I could tell this was not special.

Presenting Lily Mars (1943)

Rated higher than I ordinarily would....

[7/10 · 28 October 2017]

but since I am one of those who would be happy to watch Van Heflin while he reads the telephone book, I had to rate it an 8. He's always stylish, solid, sincere, sexy, and here he is even young and handsome! I am used to seeing him in slightly later films.

Maybe it is the mood I was in when I watched the film, but it struck me that Judy wasn't a totally sympathetic character, at least until the end. She seemed opportunistic and disingenuous at times. Kind of pushy even. And then to be upset because she can't be the star her first time performing: hey, she's got a successful producer/director in love with her. She's got a part in a big show, and she's on her way. But she is pouting about not being the lead her first time out. Only at the end does she redeem herself.

No criticism of her singing and dancing, both are wonderful. And Judy looks terrific though she is VERY short. Without Van in the film, I'd have rated this a 6.

Brainstorm (1983)

Natalie Wood's Beauty

[3/10 · 22 July 2017]

and the memory of her in other good-to-great films, is the ONLY reason to watch this rubbish. It was extremely disjointed, as if the director/writers were going in one direction and then would stop take a holiday or something and come back with a different idea altogether. One other reviewer mentioned the son being disturbed and yet Walken and Wood never are seen with the son or even mention him again after his "psychotic break" as it is called due to him playing with Dad's toys.

I also agree with the reviewer who said that Louise Fletcher's chain smoking looked like it was done by someone who has never smoked. Really, it isn't any one gripe that stands out, the story-lines just aren't fleshed out, the script is mediocre, and the whole thing doesn't make sense. Slapping on a romantic ending to a sci fi/futuristic film without a strong ending to the sci fi is another poor choice.

I was impressed by how Natalie Wood continued to be a knockout, perfect hair and make up, and a good actress even in this lousy film, till the day she died.

Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)

My opinion hasn't changed in all these years esp. regarding CAT

[10/10 · 4 February 2017]

If anyone can find a film with a better use of an animal that is NOT a film about an animal nor primarily about a relationship between a human and an animal, then let me know! The cat is just used so deftly in this movie. Not too sentimental, just the right touch of humor, symbolism, warmth, pathos, concern for animal welfare. So many shots are framed with the cat in the perfect spot. Then there are the reactions of the cat to the moving cigarette holder, the noisy party, the rain, the appearance of a man wearing a dog mask. There is the positioning of the cat in the kitchen sink or on the bed, or looking out onto the street from the windowsill; it is all just purr-fect. Seems realistic too-- I know cats. Not too cutesy. Hepburn balanced that well in her performance, regarding the cat. Just something about the film that probably doesn't get mentioned in many other reviews.....study the use of CAT!

Allied (2016)

Disintegrates into the implausible, then the syrupy and gooey

[5/10 · 26 November 2016]

The film started off well.....even though I knew there would be a plot development coming later regarding the possibility of the wife being a spy for the Nazis. I didn't mind the story of how the two leads got together and ended up in Hampstead in the middle of the war. I didn't mind waiting for the crisis to come up where Brad Pitt doesn't know if his wife is a spy or not. But once it does come up, Brad undertakes some pretty far fetched ventures that could undermine the Allies' security even in order to find out. I was even overlooking that. What finally tore it was the way Brad's wife played by Marion Cotillard handles her own dilemma and crisis. She could have sought help or guidance from Brad OR his superiors, totally versed in the very areas she was struggling with. It indicates that she did not trust her husband in spite of the lovey dovey marriage portrayed. Either that, or she was simply a wimp and a wuss. This made the whole movie rather unbelievable. As for the ending of the film with the letter to her daughter especially, that was superfluous and heavy on the treacle, a very obvious attempt to tug at heartstrings in case the audience doesn't already GET that she really loved her daughter. Last straw, by this time I really didn't care for the film.

The Patty Duke Show (1963–1966)

Sorry, I cannot support the raves of other user reviews

[5/10 · 14 July 2016]

I have seen a few episodes recently. The show is predictable and not particularly funny! If you want a funny 60s show, watch the Dick Van Dyke show or Leave It To Beaver. Patty Duke is a fine actress but in her show she has without doubt the WORST British accent I have ever heard on a movie or television screen. Just appalling that a dialect coach did not work with her a bit more. Of course we now have the backstory that Duke was exploited, and was suffering from bipolar disorder to boot, while making the show. I commend Duke for having to perform double duty under these circumstances.

In the episode recalling Cathy arriving for the first time, she is supposed to be coming from Scotland, is that supposed to be a Scottish accent? Good grief, that would be an even worse slaughter of accents. Even assuming she is English, but arriving from Scotland, you don't get any sense of that part of the world being her former lifestyle in her vocabulary or habits, let alone the accent. I just couldn't get past this major flaw. Apologies to the late Miss Duke, a fine actress.

Colditz (2005)

Should focus on prison life, and the escape plans and attempts

[6/10 · 16 April 2016]

Well, I have a big crush on Damian Lewis but that is not enough to propel this series into a high star rating. There isn't nearly enough time spent on the attempts to escape from what is almost an inescapable fortress. There isn't enough attention to the place, or to the feelings of frustration and uselessness and claustrophobia that these POW's feel. In addition, sometimes it is difficult to understand what is being said. I could understand Lewis though.

There are too few scenes showing how these prisoners actually spend their TIME, other than staring out the window. Escape plans which took months in reality are glossed over, and suddenly you see a bunch of guys on another daring attempt, almost out of the blue. The Colditz story is a fascinating one and the 1972 series is well worth seeing. This one, see it once and you really get how great the original was.

I thought this version had a love triangle that took up too much screen time and pulled the viewer into London too often. That defeats the purpose of creating the proper atmosphere for the viewer to feel what it was really like to be stuck in Colditz with very little hope of escape. I will say that the acting and sets are good.

Hamlet (1996)

Compare and Contrast with another version I just saw

[10/10 · 1 July 2013]

Keeping this brief, but I remember this version so fondly....and am a huge fan of actor/director/screenplay adapter Branagh. I am prompted to write because I haven't seen this one lately but yesterday saw Tony Richardson's Hamlet starring Nicol Williamson. How it made me appreciate THIS ONE. It is SO much better. There's almost no comparison. Branagh's Hamlet has more shades of color and complexity, more depth. He's the right age, and his mother and stepfather actually look older than he, which is not the case in the Hamlet with Williamson. Horatio is the right age to be his pal in Branagh's version-- is that too much to ask, a Horatio that does not look quite a bit older than Claudius?

The play is not cut to ribbons, either, which is what we find in the Nicol Williamson version of Hamlet. In fact, it's the whole play, what a concept. Anyway I have not seen Branagh's Hamlet recently enough to give it a serious review, I only want to say that watching the truncated, miscast one from director Tony Richardson made me appreciate just how great this version is, how much it affected me when I saw it.

Wimbledon (2004)

Awful

[1/10 · 31 March 2012]

Awful is the lowest rating so that's my subject heading, sorry. I am a fan of the Wimbledon event, and there's nothing I'd like better than to see Andy Murray or another Brit win it. And "our hero" in this film is a struggling British tennis player trying to win it.

But this movie is dreadful. The lead characters do not have a convincing romantic relationship AT ALL. The female lead does not seem like a real person, and is not developed well.

The plot is extremely contrived, predictable, and trite, with a tacked-on ending that is way too glib and phony. Paul Bethany is good looking, and it's fun to see Evert and McEnroe, and that is just about ALL that is good in this movie!