vincentlynch-moonoi Reviews

Cluny Brown (1946)

I just don't get it

[6/10 · 5 May 2024]

For decades I pretty much ignored films starring Charles Boyer. Not sure why. Perhaps at some point years ago I saw one film by him that I just didn't like. Then a couple of years ago I watched a Bette Davis film where he was the male lead and decided I had to rethink Boyer as an actor. I've pretty much changed my mind about him. I rather enjoy his films. And I very much enjoyed his appearance on "What's My Line"; seemed like such a genuinely charming man.

So today I watched this film -- "Cluny Brown". I guess I just don't get it. I thought it was just about the dumbest movie I've ever watched. Yes, I know...it's satire. But what a waste of celluloid.

Don't get me wrong. Boyer is at his most charming. And Jennifer Jones -- whom is not a favorite of mine -- was quite fresh and appealing. And everyone else does rather nicely here. But I thought the plot was just plain dumb. I wanted to like it. But I didn't. Not at all.

I guess it must be me.

Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1942)

Better Than Many Of The Holmes Mysteries

[6/10 · 29 April 2024]

I've never been much of a fan of the Sherlock Holmes B flicks starring Basil Rathbone. This one isn't bad except for one horrible blunder at the end of the film when Holmes is...well, better not tell you...wait for it! But it sorta ruined the film for me. How could they possibly think they could by with that?

Rathbone is Rathbone here; not much more to say about that. Same for poor old Nigel Bruce as Watson...couldn't they have given a bit more credit on occasion than they did??? Lionel Atwill plays the ever evil Moriarty here; does he really die at the end? Probably not.

This is okay if you just want to watch Holmes one more time...but don't expect a lot.

Falling in Love in Niagara (2024 TV Movie)

Can't recommend it

[5/10 · 23 April 2024]

It's rare that I watch Hallmark movies...sometimes the Christmas season's flicks are okay. But this one I watched because I love Niagara Falls, but haven't been there in over 20 years. And that leads to complaint #1...the scenic photography of the beautiful Niagara gorge was very poor...looked to me like cheap drones.

The plot? Well, nothing new here. Well, maybe that's not quite true. It begins with the premise that the young lead woman is to rigid in her life and gets dumped just 5 weeks before her wedding and planned honeymoon in Niagara Falls. But she goes anyway, but with her sister, instead of a husband. And, of course, meets someone she hates at first, but falls in love with. Okay. Not bad. A bit mundane.

Jocelyn Hudon was perky enough as the female lead. I wasn't very interested in Dan Jeannotte as the male lead. And Chris Violette...he's an actor? No thank you.

So no, overall, I can't recommend this.

The Saint Takes Over (1940)

Decent B movie

[7/10 · 25 March 2024]

I watched my first "The Saint" movie just the other night ("The Saint In Palm Springs"), and it wasn't very good. This film -- "The Saint Takes Over" was still a B movie, but a pretty decent effort. That's not to say it was an A movie plot, but it was interesting.

George Sanders was good here, as were the supporting characters, although none stood out. The plot had some clever devices in it, particularly the climax. It's interesting that Wendy Barrie played a different character in each of the several Saint films she appeared in. I thought she looked familiar!

If you need to pass some time, this is a decent distraction, and you'll recognize several of the supporting actors.

The Saint in Palm Springs (1940)

There are 2 reasons to watch this film...

[6/10 · 21 March 2024]

...and the plot is not one of them.

The first reason to watch this film in George Sanders. I always enjoy seeing Sanders on screen, even in a bad movie (and this is a pretty poor B movie). The second reason to watch is the supporting performance by Paul Guilfoyle as the fumbling house detective (or future inmate). Guilfoyle is a hoot here. The rest of the cast...nothing that will set the world (or the nitrate film) on fire.

As far as the plot...this is actually the first Saint film I ever watched. I thought the Saint was supposed to be clever. He bumbles his way through this film, perhaps tripping over plot holes; who wrote this feeble story line? In this film The Saint makes one amateurish goof after another.

I'm still glad I watched it...but it won't get a second viewing by me.

Little Women (2019)

Is there a plot here?

[5/10 · 19 March 2024]

One of our reviewers here -- planktonrules -- entitled his review "I am the odd reviewer who did NOT love this film". You are not alone!

I will preface the rest of what I say with the caveat that I watched this film having never read the book. Maybe that makes a difference, but no screenwriter or director should assume that a viewer will have read the source book of a film they are working on. Perhaps my not having ever read the book is why I had difficulty finding a plot in this group of anecdotes, many out of sequence...terribly out of sequence. Si, I'm sorry Greta, but I found this film to be a terrible mess.

All, however, is not lost. The acting performances are. Overall, not bad. They range from excellent to passable. One of the American actresses I most admire for her many performances is Meryl Streep. Sorry, Meryl, you wasted your talents here. But the various young actresses who played the sisters here were very good.

The settings and wardrobes were excellent, along with fine cinematography.

But I kept wanting to give up on this film. Every 5 or 10 minutes I found myself wondering if I should just quit the film. Looking back...I wish I had.

Grace of Monaco (2014)

Well excuse me...

[5/10 · 9 March 2024]

...but let's all shed a tear for those poor, poor rich folks that inhabit a city of less than 1 square mile. Oh my...they might have had to become a part of France. Are you kidding me? On the world stage...this is NOTHING. And we're supposed to sit through 103 minutes of hand wringing by a former movie actress? Honestly, this film didn't need to be made. The story isn't even interesting.

That's not to say that Nicole Kidman doesn't do a fine job here. She's good in a rather bland role in a rather bland film.

Perhaps the best thing about the film is that it somewhat destroys the fantasy that Kelly lived a storybook romance as a fair princess.

Frankly, would the world have cared if Monaco had actually become a part of France...France which protects Monaco with its military.

Trust me...no matter how boring your life is, you have better things to do than watch this film. The events depicted here occurred in the same year...1962...as the Cuban Missile Crisis, which threatened to plunge the world into nuclear destruction. Now there's a ripe target.

Beecham House (2019)

Shame on the 'networks' broadcasting this

[8/10 · 7 March 2024]

I have to admit up front that I knew in advance that this series was not picked up for a second season. Nevertheless, I condemn the 'networks' involved for -- once again as all too often happens -- luring us into a production only to cancel the series, leaving us wondering how things turn out. Shame, shame, shame.

However, I'll give future viewers a piece of advice. As you near the end of episode 6, once two of the main characters see the Taj Mahal...stop watching. That way, you have a happy ending. Once you go beyond that to the last approximately 2-3 minutes, you are left on a distressing cliff-hanger only wanting more.

In my life I spent a great deal of time in Southeast Asia, particularly Thailand. I have always regretted not having spent at least one summer in India. And this drama made me feel that regret even stronger. The settings are stunning, and it is beautifully filmed.

The acting is top notch, too...although you'll likely not like (and that's putting it mildly) the mother. The Indian actors here are excellent.

One of the other reviewers complained about clichés. Heck, I can't remember the last movie I saw that wasn't filled with clichés making the end quite predictable. Usually a drama isn't about figuring out what the end is...it's more about how do they get to the end. And in that regard, this series is right up there.

In conclusion, don't pass this by because it was not renewed. Watch it for what we do have.

Miguel Wants to Fight (2023)

Refreshing

[7/10 · 4 March 2024]

I have to preface my review by noting that I'm 74 years old.

And yet, I really enjoyed this movie. Partly because I am a retired teacher/principal, so I sometimes enjoy seeing flicks about school life today.

First off, the title character here is entertaining and the actor -- Tyler Dean Flores -- seems very talented. He can be funny, sweet, angry, threatening...and convincing so. There were times here he looked to old to be a high school student, and other times he looked just right. Hope to see more of him.

I did find several of the costars just a tad annoying, although Christian Vunipola was pretty decent, despite what appears to be a lack of experience. I kinda watched this film due to one supporting actor in it -- Raul Castillo -- who plays the father here, and does nicely, but it's a rather small (but important) part.

One of the things that was really entertaining here was that the script wasn't always serious, or always humorous...it mixed things up. Some of the martial arts scene were entertaining and quite good...but funny...which they were supposed to be. Well done.

"13 Reasons why" was an all-dramatic mini-series that was pretty serious all the time. This is much lighter and simply fun to watch.

Nora Prentiss (1947)

Dumb, but oddly intriguing

[6/10 · 29 January 2024]

Yes, this film is dumb. Let's see...to run away with another woman the doctor stages a fiery car crash with another man's body. Leaving the doctor with no way to earn a living. A divorce would have been so much simpler. Just plain dumb.

However, I always enjoy Ann Sheridan, and feel she was a very underrated actress. Not so sure this was a good movie for her...especially when you read some of the reviews of the time.

The surprise here was Kent Smith. One of those actors who you recognize him as being in movies you've seen, but not usually the leading man! He does nicely as the doctor here.

I know you may be thinking that you may not want to watch this film. But, oddly enough, it is a bit intriguing. Just not believable.

There are 3 supporting actors here that deserve mention. Bruce Bennett as the doctor's partner is nothing to brag about here. Robert Alda as a nightclub owner who's a decent man does nicely. Rosemary DeCamp, whom I usually enjoy seeing in supporting roles doesn't play a very loving wife here.

All in all, it's an okay film to watch once, although not necessarily for the right reasons.

Man Alive (1945)

Childish

[5/10 · 24 January 2024]

I think that's the first time I've ever thought of using that word -- childish -- in summarizing the quality of a film. But as I sat watching this film, that word popped into my mind.

I have to admit, before going on, that I've never been particularly impressed with Pat O'Brien. Oh yes...an occasional role here and there...for example in 1940's "'Till We Meet Again"...pretty decent there. But mostly it always seemed as if he was just phoning it in...and that's the way I felt here.

It seems like a pretty weak cast to me. Adolphe Menjou seems very miscast here...but again, never a favorite of mine. Ellen Drew...who's Ellen Drew? Actually, she appeared in quite a few films, but I don't remember her at all. And of course, Rudy Vallee. Hmmmm. No great shakes as an actor, but he does 'okay' here.

As the film goes on, the plot just gets sillier and sillier. You might say that it sounds like a screwball comedy. It doesn't have the class of a screwball comedy. And some things that happen -- such as the husband (O'Brien) and Menjou walking around inside the house and never get caught...just inane.

But, I've seen worse pics. On occasion.

Cyrano (2021)

No wonder it lost millions

[5/10 · 17 January 2024]

I have to say at the beginning that I had a feeling I wasn't going to like this movie. I had no idea how much I would dislike it. But I watched it through for one reason: I think that Kelvin Harrison, Jr. Is one of the finest young actors out there. If you haven't seen "Luce" or "Cheavlier", you need to. But in this film, even Harrison didn't shine. Yes, Peter Dinklage does very well here. And Hayley Bennett does well enough.

But to be honest with you, I think many of the songs in this semi-musical are awful, and often sung poorly. It made me year for the days when Hollywood would have singers do voice-overs so we didn't have to listen to our favorite stars actually sing.

It's a beautiful production in terms of sets and locales. But that's not really why I decided to watch this film.

As I said in the title of my review, no wonder it lost millions.

Dragonwyck (1946)

Did you ever wonder if Vincent Price could really act?

[7/10 · 29 December 2023]

Most of us (at least from my generation) remember Vincent Price from his many horror films, the quality of which varied greatly, both in terms of scripts and acting, and often suffered from second-rate supporting actors. It isn't often we get to see Price in a top notch production. This, however, is one such film, and Price is really good here. Let's face it, he wasn't leading man material in the way we most often think of that. That's not to say this role isn't a bit gothic. There he is depressed, on drugs, and somewhat eerie. But this is a good script with a good story.

Gene Tierney is also excellent here, although I did have just a little trouble seeing the (then) 26 year old actress as a girl (at the beginning of the film). But, it's still a very good performance.

The supporting cast is somewhat notable, although none of them comes even close to stealing the show. Walter Huston was almost wasted as the overly-religious father; Glenn Langan plays the doctor, and I can't say that I've ever really noticed him in the other films; he's passable. I always find Anne Revere's supporting roles interesting, and she doesn't disappoint here. Spring Byington, usually a favorite of mine, doesn't have a very good role here. Harry Morgan is good here as a local farmer working under the patroon (Price). And this is an interesting film for Jessica Tandy as a crippled servant.

Despite my being from New York State myself, and a bit of an amateur history buff, I was somehow unaware of the patroon system in New York State, and I was greatly surprised that it didn't end until the mid-1800s. So there's an interesting historical context here.

A real negative for me in the film are the depictions of the Hudson Valley of New York State, an area I am relatively familiar with. They were off base in this film.

I'm not sure this is a film I'll want to go back and watch a second time, but it was good, and I'm glad to have seen it.

One Foot in Hell (1960)

Better than average Western...

[6/10 · 28 December 2023]

...but not by much.

First off, you have to be willing to accept Alan Ladd as the "bad guy". Certainly against type. And, you have to accept the idea that revenge is always worth it; there's plenty of revenge in this flick. And, to be honest, Ladd looks old and worn out here.

Second, it's one of those films where there isn't a single "good guy" to root for. Some might say, "Well, what about the townspeople?" Well, they're the ones that caused Ladd to want revenge.

The main supporting cast -- Don Murray as the drunk Confederate, Dan O'Herlihy as a cohort, Dolores Michaels as a bar girl who joins in on the revenge, and Barry Coe who plays a sharp shooter -- all do their jobs. But they're pretty unlikable. Murray's character is a hopeless drunk, who suddenly sobers up as a way to end the movie, and frankly that part of the plot is pretty ludicrous.

I can't recommend this.

Archie (2023)

As a biopic, this was a travesty

[4/10 · 15 December 2023]

Perhaps this should have, realistically, been advertised as a biopic of Dyan Cannon. A woman who was married to Cary Grant for 3 of his 82 years. But, of course, there was a desire to show Grant at his worst. What about his first wife, Virginia Cherrill? His second wife Barbara Hutton (a millionaire)? His third wife, Betsy Drake, a fellow actress? It's like they didn't exist.

There are two things I will give this four-parter credit for. First, Jason Issacs did portray Grant very well. He sorta had the look and some of the mannerisms, and his speech was on target. It's not easy portraying a person we all "knew", and Issacs succeeded.

Second, the series was pretty much on target regarding his mother. That was done well.

But think about how many of his 73 films were even mentioned in passing? Or his torrid affair with Sophia Loren?

This biopic was, essentially, a smear job, and I give it a flat out F.

My advice -- see if you can get your hands on a copy of "Cary Grant" by Marc Eliot. Well done biography.

Why Didn't They Ask Evans? (2022)

If I had to do it all over again...

[6/10 · 13 December 2023]

If I had to do it all over again, would I have watched "Why Didn't They Ask Evans". No, no, a thousand times no. I truly wish I hadn't spent 3 nights watching this. As several reviewers have pointed out...it's looooooooooong, and sometimes boring. And that's not something you'll hear me say about the vast majority of the Agatha Christie tele-pics we see in this era.

So what about the actors. The biggest test for me in that regard is whether I'd want to watch a particular actor or actress again in something else. I'm sorry to say that I have no desire to watch Will Poulter in the future; I'm not saying I wouldn't watch him in something, but I wouldn't watch something because of him. On the other hand, although I was not familiar with her, I very much enjoyed the performance of Lucy Boynton; hope to see more of her. No one else in the cast stands out, although they all pretty much do their jobs.

The past couple of years I've very much gotten into British television productions, particularly those related to mysteries. This was a disappointment to me.

See You on Venus (2023)

7++++, but not an 8

[7/10 · 24 November 2023]

NOTE: Plenty of SPOILERS here!!!!!

This film surprised me. I do have to say right off that the general premise seemed rather unrealistic. Let's see -- a boy about to graduate from high school is in a car accident that kills one friend and (perhaps) permanently cripples another...okay...plausible. The boy is about to commit suicide by jumping off a cliff into a ravine. Still okay. A girl sees him and dorkily prevents him from doing so...okay...still somewhat plausible. Skip ahead ONE DAY, and she shows up at his house -- AFTER KNOWING HIM FOR ONLY MINUTES -- to convince him -- more like blackmail him -- to travel to Spain with her so she can find her actual mother after living her whole life with various (and mostly) lousy foster parents. Well...that's where I couldn't quite buy it. A boy is convinced to travel to Spain with a girl he doesn't even know (and his parents paying for it) to find her real mother. And up to that point, I had trouble buying into this film.

But then, seeing the chemistry between Alex Aiono and Virginia Gardner once they go to Spain...it was charming, while being a heart breaking situation for both of them, and even more so when we learn that the girl has a potentially fatal heart condition. How could you not like these two characters? How could you not have a great deal of empathy for what they were both going through? And the way they handled the ending...did she or didn't she live through the surgery...was done well and really kept you wondering.

So I looked up Alex Aiono on the web...never heard of him...but he is an amazingly successful (and upbeat) singer who is branching out into acting. And, while on occasion his acting was just a bit stiff, most of the time he portrayed a young man whom it would difficult to not like. He's worth following as he develops his career. I was impressed with him. Similarly, Virginia Gardner was quite appealing in her role.

And then there was the photography throughout Spain. Spectacular. I never had even the slightest interest in traveling to Spain, but after seeing this film, if I wasn't such an old fart, I'd be buying a ticket today!

Stick with this film for the first 15-20 minutes, and you'll be glad you did.

By the way...why didn't I give the film an "8"? For me, "8" and above is reserved for truly memorable films that everyone should watch. This film would depend on one's tastes.

The Pride and the Passion (1957)

Didin't anyone notice this just wasn't coming together?

[3/10 · 1 September 2023]

How do you take my all-time favorite actor (Cary Grant), plus the woman I thought was the most beautiful in the world (Sophia Loren), plus an actor I begrudingly give kudos to for many dramatic roles (Frank Sinatra), PLUS A RELIABLE DIRECTOR LIKE STANLEY KRAMER...and make such a stinker as this film? I sat there thinking...didn't anyone notice that in this big budget picture, 'it' just wasn't working, wasn't coming together? Not to mention some scintillating dialog (such as "Wipe your nose").

After suffering through this film for 132 minutes, I'm trying to look back and find something good to say about it. Long pause. Nope. Can't think of a thing. I'm not exaggerating. I saw nothing admirable about Cary Grant's acting here; passable; and you've never heard me make such a criticism of Cary Grant. I didn't think Frank Sinatra came across well as a peasant leader...looked silly...and sounded worse. Sophia Loren had few impressive scenes.

So what about the plot? Strike out there, too. How does one want to watch them drag a cannon across Spain? Not for 132 minutes. Thank god they stopped when Sinatra's and Loren's characters died and we didn't have to watch Grant drag the cannon back across Spain!

Even once in Avila...the goal of Sinatra's character...I sat there thinking 'so what?' Perhaps if the cannon had been part of a much bigger plot...well...maybe.

I can be thankful for one thing. I didn't have to pay to see this film.

One More Tomorrow (1946)

If only it had remembered it was a drama

[7/10 · 28 August 2023]

Yes, that's the one real problem with this film. Too much humor between Dennis Morgan and Jack Carson. Far less of it would have been appropriate since this really is a drama.

Once we get beyond that, it's a good film and one where the good guy (actually good girl -- Ann Sheridan) wins out over the bad guy (actually bad girl -- Alexis Smith). In the middle is the very likable Dennis Morgan.

I always felt that Dennis Morgan is an underrated actor. He could sing, do light comedy, and could be dramatic. And I always enjoyed his performances...and did here. It always seemed like it was hard not to like him.

Ann Sheridan shines here. I had forgotten just how good she could be. This was a good reminder. And, I had forgotten just how bad Alexis Smith could be...and here she was aat her nastiest. In other words, all 3 main characters do exactly what is needed for the story.

Apparently Morgan and Jack Carson were buddies. And in some films that worked. I didn't feel it did here. Carson was a distraction. Jane Wyman is along in her "pre-fame" period, and does just fine, although I thought she really had only one really good scene as "the best friend". Reginald Gardiner's character here seems very unrealistic, and again was more a distraction than anything else. The father is ably played by Thurston Hall, a fine character actor.

As to the story line, boiy meets girl, they fall in love, but their idea of what a marraige should be separates them. But the scheming other woman strikes and temporarily wins the day...but in the end heads for Reno. Okay, nothing very unusual here, but, except for the comic instrusions, it's handled nicely.

This is not "great" cinema, but it's a decent flick.

Murder Most Foul (1964)

Just plain fun

[7/10 · 1 August 2023]

I wonder how Agatha Christie liked these Margaret Rutherford films featuring the character Miss Marple? Regardless, this series of film is a relatively light-hearted approach to the Marple mysteries.

Margaret Rutherfod is great fun in this somewhat short film (90 minutes flat). Not exactly the Miss Marple I always imagined...but fun as she stumbles along finding the real solution to a court case where she was on the jury. And that, btw, is the one problem with this film. It starts out in court...but never goes back to make things right. But in between, you'll chuckle at some of the characterizations.

Bud Tingwell is good as the police inspector and. Stringer Davis -- Rutherford's real-life husband -- is also very good here. The rest of the cast...well...they're "okay".

Don't take it too seriously, and you'll enjoy the fun.

Burden of Truth (2018–2021)

Mixed feelings, although I was hooked

[7/10 · 27 July 2023]

I have mixed feelings about this Canadian show, and even when I began the first season, I almost turned it off a couple of times. But I stuck with it, and I'm glad I did. It did hook me. But on the other hand, bu the time I was getting toward the end of the fourth and final season, I thought it was ready to end. Perfect timing.

To me there is one overriding problem with the series. The lead female is a pretty much unlikable lawyer. Yes, she ultimately wins all her cases, but you don't like her much while she's doing all that winning. On the other hand, her legal and romantic partner, also a lawyer, is very likable. Why he would be attracted to her...I could never quite figure that out. The lead female actress is Kristin Kreuk. Based on this character, I'm not sure I want to see her again in other things...and yes, I know that's unfair of me. On the other hand, her partner is played by Peter Mooney, and I'd love to see him in some other programs.

An interesting subplot is about a first nation police officer (and eventually police chief) of a small town. In fact, the underlying thread to the whole series is the plight (or should I say man y plights) of first nation people in Canada. The actor here is Meegwun Fairbrother, and I really enjoyed his performance. Hope to see more of him!

Another subplot is a young first nation girl played by Star Slade. Great performance by her, as well.

Aside from the problem of not liking the character played by the lead actress, there are a couple of other problems with this series. First, two teenagers (in the first year) suddenly become full-fledged police officers or nearly full-fledged lawyers by the fourth year. Come on now. Not likely at all. The other problem is how each crisis that comes up for the legal team is suddenly solved...often minutes before disaster in the courtroom would have happened. Okay, but that gets old.

But don't get me wrong. This is a good series. Four years, 8 shows per year. Well worth the investment in time, and certainly an above average television drama. Are most Canadian show this good?

Undercover (I) (2016)

Not my kind of drama, but...

[7/10 · 24 July 2023]

This is not my kind of drama. But I watched if for one reason: Adrian Lester is, from my perspective, one of the very best actors out there...whether we are talking Hollywood or Great Britain. So I'll watch almost anything that he's in. And here, he didn't disappoint.

On the other hand...my position on, Sophie Okonedo...I see reviewers here raving about her performance. Throughout the series I sat there thinking, over and over, that I couldn't decide if that was good acting due to the intensity...or just plain over the top acting.

Everyone else here was good. Daniel Ezra...an intriguing young actor.

But there were things in this drama that bothered me. At times it was slow, but then, in the last 20-30 minutes -- I guess to be suspenseful -- it seems that the writers cheated us and tried to wrap up too much, too quickly. Early in the series I felt the story bogged down. Then in that last episode things sped out of control. The other thing that bothered me was that the segment in the United States Supreme Court...no, just no, not realistic at all.

But, I have to admit, the series had me hooked early on...again, despite the fact that there were aspects of it that were disappointing.

Night Song (1947)

Gets better as you get into it; and a challenge to you

[7/10 · 15 July 2023]

There were some parts of the film early on that I found boring. In fact, I had started watching this film once before and drupped it. This time I saw it through and I was glad I did. It had enough good points to make up for the early slowness, and, overall it's a pretty decent film. Not great, but "pretty good".

Among the things the film has going for it:

You can't go wrong with Ethyl Barrymore. She's a wonderful addition to most any film, and she certainly was here.

I've never seen a film before where I was impressed by Hoagy Carmichael. Well, here I was impressed. He was perfect for the 'best friend'. Don't think I'm slighing Carmichael. I personally count "Stardust" as, perhaps, the best song ever written. And interestingly, in this film he sings "Who Killed the Black Widder".

Dana Andrews was very good here, and the special contact lenses he wore surely helped him portray a blind man. I almost always enjoyed Dana Andrews, but I guess alcoholism dimmed his career.

I was not particularly impressed when Dana Andrews was supposedly playing the piano, but the music sounded really great when the real Arthur Rubinstein and the real Eugene Ormandy were performing.

Merle Oberon is very good here.

Ther eare part of this film that seem pretty cliche, but it's a decent movie, particularly as you get further into it.

As I was getting toward the end of the film, it occurred to me how much differently this film might end if the script was being written today. So that's my challenge to you: how would a similar story be more likely to end in today's cinema?

The Heavenly Body (1944)

Too bad she couldn't act

[7/10 · 6 July 2023]

For those of you who may be fans, I apologize. But the few times I have watched Hedy Lamaar in a film, I've always thought the same thing: who thought she could act? I felt the same way this time around. Was she beautiful? No question. But her heavy accent here was uncomfortable to listen to for 95 minutes.

The other thing that didn't work here was the first third of the film. To put it simply, it dragged along. Yes, I know, they had to set up the story for the punch line, so to speak...but it just bored me. Then, all of a sudden, a little more than a third of the way through the film things got more interesting. There was some clever dialog.

What the film did have going for it was the cleverness and wittiness of one of the best actors of the generation: William Powell. His talent for something akin to slapstick is quite obvious here. To say he was a natural is putting it mildly.

The talents of some of the supporting actors here is disappointing: Fay Bainter was certainlyl misued here, as was Henry O'Neill. Spring Byington fared only slightly better.

I'm begrudingly giving this film a "7", but that's only because William Powell always shines brightly.

Picnic at Hanging Rock (2018)

Don't be confused by the poor reviews

[8/10 · 17 June 2023]

I don't think I've ever seen a film or extended series reviewed here on IMDB that has had reviews at drastically ends of the spectrum as this one. And I'll tell you what the problem is -- some of our reviewers are trying to review the old movie version of this story, and are seeing the new version only through that lens. Well, for those of you who think that is helpful -- which it's not -- I hated the old movie version and couldn't watch it to conclusion. Bottom line for readers -- this is a different telling of the story; accept it for that and I think you'll really like it.

The other things viewers need to be aware of -- the whole story is historical FICTION.

This version of the story is a tad bit too long. I think stronger editing down to 5 episodes (instead of 6) would have been fine. However, the acting was top notch, the settings were wonderful, and the story line had enough twists and turns to keep you watching. It's very well done. I was particularly interested in Mark Coles Smith -- a supporting character actor -- who is an aboriginal himself, as he portrays in this series.

As got through the first half of the series, I began to realize that I was going to be disappointed in the film's conclusion. And, at the end I was half disappointed and half satisfied. The satisfying part was the way that the chief villain of the film (I won't spoil that) came to her end. The disappointing aspect was that we don't learn what happened to the girls who disappeared. And I much prefer conclusive endings. What's the use of a mystery if you don't solve the mystery?