bob-1070 Reviews

The Deadly Affair (1967)

Deadly boring

[1/10 · 14 June 2010]

I caught this on TCM and figured with a cast that included James Mason and Simone Signoret and direction by Sidney Lumet, it would be worth watching. I was wrong. It is ponderously slow, with uninteresting characters and a plot that is even less interesting. There is absolutely no reason to care about the "suicide" victim in the story, and even less reason to care if James Mason solves the crime. And since we didn't care, my wife and I turned it off halfway through. I'm a huge fan of Cinematographer Freddie Young, but the photography here is drab and desaturated -- it's no doubt the "look" the filmmakers wanted, but it's not a pleasure to look at. Plus, there's a subplot about Mason's nymphomaniac wife which has nothing to do with anything, other than to make Mason an even less likable protagonist. IMO, there's a reason this isn't available on DVD: it's terrible!

A Life of Her Own (1950)

Watch the first 15 or 20 minutes and then turn it off

[3/10 · 6 April 2010]

As other reviewers have noted, the first 15 or 20 minutes of this film are quite watchable -- energetic, lots going on, well photographed. But when Ann Dvorak starts getting plastered, the speechifying starts, and there isn't one honest note that follows. It all becomes very overwrought, with ridiculous, exposition-filled dialog...and some pretentious speech making at the end. When Ray Milland enters the story, it basically becomes a poor remake of "The Divorcée" with the last act pretty much identical -- possible spoiler here -- with his wife revealed as a cripple in a wheelchair. There is zero chemistry between Turner and Milland. Milland is totally miscast, which doesn't help. Don't be fooled by the fact that George Cukor directed this because it's a pretty awful film, made worse by the fact the expectations you have given all of this A-list talent.

Tight Spot (1955)

Mostly predictable, should have been better

[5/10 · 3 April 2010]

As many reviewers have noted, Ginger Rogers was too old to pull off this role, and her career of playing good girls works against her here -- a real "bad girl" type would have helped the believability of the story and character.

The location filming in the opening sections is very good, which hurts the film because the over-lit hotel room set where most of the story takes place looks awful in contrast. Phil Karlson directed some decent noir films, so it's a shame that there isn't any inventive lighting to give this stage-bound film some more style.

A major problem here is that the characters simply aren't very smart about their situation, so I found myself asking "why don't they do that?" more than once.

Lorne Greene is terrific in a small part as the Crime Boss; Brian Keith is good, Robinson is solid but not particularly memorable, and the film has one terrific scene between Ginger and her sister. Otherwise, except for one twist, I found the plot very predictable and I knew exactly how it was going to play out within about 25 minutes. So in the end, it's just okay, but certainly not something I'd ever watch again.

It's a Wonderful World (1939)

Thumbs down

[3/10 · 28 January 2010]

Note: the spoiler I mention occurs in the first 10 minutes. I don't think knowing it will ruin the movie for you, but I mention it for full disclosure!

I'm with the naysayers on this one. This comes across as a hybrid of "It Happened One Night" and a Thin Man mystery and it simply does not work. You're better off watching the prior works for a 2nd or 3rd time than watching this one even once.

As others have remarked, there's no chemistry between Colbert and Stewart, and it's not very funny. Nor does it make much sense, and the illogic is compounded by too many lucky coincidences. Colbert plays a "runaway poetess." Right. That should be the tip-off to how little logic exists in this movie. We're not really rooting for any of the characters either. Stewart is in it totally for the money, and although his client has been framed for murder, he's a drunk and a complete jerk so there's not even an emotional reason to worry that he may go to the electric chair.

Everyone associated with this film has done far better work, which makes this one even worse -- "A" students turning in "C minus" work. So there is definitely a reason why it's not on DVD: it's a lousy movie!

Berlin Express (1948)

Only worthwhile for the location filming

[4/10 · 17 January 2010]

The only real reason to watch this film is for the location work in Frankfurt and Berlin which really shows the results of the allied bombing in WW2. There's some good black and white cinematography, and an interesting sequence in an old brewery, but for a movie that promises suspense and intrigue on a train, there's very little suspense, incomprehensible intrigue and not much on trains. Maybe the concept made sense in 1948, but the plot left my wife and me scratching our heads. Dr. Bernhardt is a German diplomat/professor who apparently has some sort of vision of a unified postwar Germany and is en route to a conference in Berlin to present it to the allies at a conference. There's another faction of Germans who oppose him, for reasons unknown. Exactly why we're supposed to care one way or the other is unclear, but the 2nd faction wants to prevent him from making his presentation. There's also some propaganda about postwar cooperation, particularly regarding the Soviets. There's no chemistry between Robert Ryan and Merle Oberon who is unconvincing as a French woman, and none of the characters are particularly interesting. If you want suspense and intrigue on a train, I highly recommend "The Narrow Margin" (the 1952 original, not the remake). But "Berlin Express" is pretty underwhelming.

The Young Victoria (2009)

Unnecessary - watch the TV mini-series instead

[2/10 · 21 November 2009]

I can only wonder why they bothered making this film so soon after the excellent and far superior 2001 TV production "Victoria and Albert." In comparison with that version, this one fails on almost every level. The lead performers have very little chemistry, and the episodic plot has no real through line. I got the feeling that the film had to be reworked in post production, given the choppy editing, the strange structure (the first half is presented as a flashback for no apparent reason), and the reliance on voice over to explain who's who and what's what. The director really likes to rack focus, which becomes incredibly annoying. And the digital backgrounds and compositing are quite obvious and distracting. There are some nice sets and excellent costumes, but that's no reason to waste 100 minutes of your life on this dud. Instead, rent the mini-series or one of the documentaries about Victoria if you're interested in the subject.

Violent Saturday (1955)

Slow, tedious with only about 20 good minutes

[3/10 · 26 October 2009]

Yes, it has some nice location work, and there's a good sequence after the robbery, at the farm. Other than that, I can't recommend this film. Its 90 minutes feel like 2-1/2 hours. There is a tremendous amount of dull soap opera which is not particularly compelling, and never pays off. The entire film feels padded, and would be more suited to a 1-hour TV anthology from the 1950s or 1960s, like the old "Kraft Suspense Theater." We waste time with a subplot about a destitute librarian. We learn some worthless information about Lee Marvin's past. We watch in utter boredom as Lee Marvin and J. Carroll Naish take forever to get off a train which, for no particular reason, is carrying the Amish family that appears later. Lee Marvin is constantly using an inhaler, and you expect this is going to pay off eventually, but it never does. The fact that Victor Mature works for Richard Egan turns out to be meaningless. And Egan's messed up personal life, which occupies a ridiculous amount of screen time, adds up to very little. Watch this one with your hand on the fast forward button...you'll need it.

A Night to Remember (1942)

A few good moments can't save this one.

[3/10 · 15 August 2009]

This is available on DVD as part of Sony's "Icons of Screwball Comedy" series. I like Loretta Young, but she is certainly no "icon" of the genre, nor can this movie even be described as a "Screwball Comedy." Perhaps my disappointment in the film was based on faulty expectations. It's just a B picture from Columbia, clearly made on a shoestring budget, and what comedy there is in the film is pretty forced and obvious, exemplified by a tedious gag in which Brian Aherne has trouble opening a door. The plot -- a couple move into a building where a murderer lives -- was more entertaining when the Three Stooges did it. Even the solution to the mystery is forgettable. Young and Aherne are okay, but have nowhere near the chemistry of William Powell and Myrna Loy in their many films together. I'll give props to the cinematography: there is some fine work with limited light which, in some scenes, disguise the stage-bound nature of the film. Bottom line: this one's not worth your time.

The Broken (2008)

Padded version of an old Twilight Zone episode

[3/10 · 11 May 2009]

Having read many of the comments here, I'm surprised that no one has recognized this as basically an overlong remake of a Twilight Zone episode from 1960 called "Mirror Image," starring Vera Miles. Rod Serling did a much better job of creating an effective spooky tale in 24 minutes than Sean Ellis did in 88 minutes with this tedious snooze. A short piece can be effective with a mysterious and unexplained ending, but in a feature film, there should be a bit more substance and the story should make sense. Sadly, substance and sense are two things missing from "The Broken." Yes, it has some moments, but they are not enough to justify your time. Some further observations: although this is clearly a contemporary story, not one character in the movie has a cellphone! And even though a car accident is the event that gets the story going, there is never any reference to an insurance company, to the person who was driving the other car, or to the police who would have been required to do a report. My advice: skip this bore and watch the original instead!

We Were Strangers (1949)

Tedious and embarrassing

[2/10 · 4 March 2009]

Every once in awhile, I find a film on Turner Classic Movies with a lot of A-list talent that I've never heard of. Usually there's a good reason why I'd never heard of it: it's bad. And when it's a film directed by John Huston, which he co-wrote with Peter Viertel (who collaborated with Huston 2 years later on "African Queen"), and with a cast as good as this...well, it seems even worse because of heightened expectations. There are maybe fifteen good minutes in this film, most of which include the great Pedro Armendariz as a sleazy, scary Cuban Cop. The rest ranges from mediocre to dismal. Heavy handed, didactic dialog is presented in static, stagy tableaux. Characterization -- other than by Armendariz -- is non-existent. One clever plot reversal leads to an unbelievable ending that comes out of nowhere. Story points are suddenly dropped, things happen completely out of convenience or because the director decides they should happen that way, and there is absolutely no sense of tension. Garfield is totally miscast, Jones tries her best, and Roland is a cartoon character. You can read the other positive reviews posted here and think that I must be way off base...but just ask yourself why you've never heard of this movie. If it was any good, you would have.

Today We Live (1933)

Boring and bad

[1/10 · 28 December 2006]

My wife and I thought that with this cast and director, the movie would have to be at least worth watching. We were wrong. In fact, we gave up on it after 45 minutes. The idea that Crawford, Young and Tone are British but speak with American accents was, for me, impossible to get past -- hard to believe this is England when no one talks with a British accent. There is zero chemistry between Crawford and anyone, and to echo a previous comment, the idea that Cooper and Crawford suddenly declare their love for one another without any reason is ludicrous. There is no reason to care about any of the characters, which is why we threw in the towel halfway through. I found it hard to believe that Hawks directed this, as none of the actors spoke with the trademark Hawksian rat-a-tat delivery. So save your time, and skip this one.

Terror on a Train (1953)

"Bomb" is the word for this one.

[2/10 · 1 November 2006]

This British film is truly awful, and it's hard to believe that Glenn Ford is in it, although he pretty much sleepwalks through it. The idea of a bomb on a train sounds good...but it turns out this train ends up parked for the majority of the film! No action, no movement, just a static train. The area where the train is parked is evacuated, so it's not like there's any danger to anyone either. In fact, this film could be used in a film class to show how NOT to make a suspense film. True suspense is generated by letting the audience know things that the characters don't, a fact apparently unknown to the director. SPOILER: the train actually has two bombs on it, but we are led to believe there is only one. After the first bomb is defused, it feels as if there is no longer a reason to watch the film any more. But at the last minute, the villain, who has no apparent motivation for his actions, reveals there are two. Nor are we certain WHEN the bombs will go off, so we don't even have a classic "ticking bomb" tension sequence. A good 10 minutes or more are spent watching Glenn Ford's French wife thinking about leaving him, and then wondering where he is . She's such an annoying character that we don't care whether she reconciles with him, so when she does, there's nothing emotional about it. Most of the other characters are fairly devoid of personality, and none have any problems or issues. It's only 72 minutes, but it feels long because it's tedious and dull. Don't waste your time.

Stranger on the Third Floor (1940)

One of the worst movies ever made

[1/10 · 22 March 2006]

This film is terrible on every level. Although Peter Lorre gets top billing, he's barely in the film and probably worked no more than 1 or 2 days. His performance is pure caricature, but he can't be faulted completely because he had a miserable script to work with. The story is ridiculous, obvious and full of idiotic coincidences, and the direction is heavy handed, highlighted by a nightmare sequence that looks like it came straight out of a Bugs Bunny cartoon. The acting is high school quality, and even the great Elisha Cook Jr hams it up embarrassingly. Even though the movie is only 64 minutes, it moves at a snail's pace, with every moment overstated and pounded with a sledgehammer, made worse by some of the most pathetic narration you've ever heard in a film. I watched this on TCM because Leonard Maltin gave it 3 out of 4 stars -- I don't know what he was smoking, but it must have been pretty strong! Some bad movies are entertaining in their awfulness, but this one is just plain bad. You've been warned!

Walk on the Wild Side (1962)

A travesty on every level

[1/10 · 16 March 2006]

What were they thinking??? This is one of the most poorly cast movies in the history of Hollywood. Laurence Harvey is supposed to be a Texan, but he doesn't look like a cowboy/farmer and can't do the accent. Jane Fonda is supposed to be a 16 year old Texan, but she doesn't look 16 and can't do the accent either. Anne Baxter is supposed to be a Mexican -- yeah, right. Capucine is supposed to be...well, I'm not exactly sure what her character is. And we're supposed to believe that Barbara Stanwyck, with her New York accent, runs a New Orleans Cat House? Puh-leeez!!! There's not one genuine southern accent in the entire film. The story is totally uninvolving, the characters are unbelievable and, except for Baxter, unsympathetic. The direction is all over the place, and the art direction fails to evoke the 1930s, much less New Orleans. Don't waste your time or money on this misbegotten abortion.

Hustle (2004–2012)

Blatant rip-off of "The Sting"

[18 January 2006]

This show recently premiered on AMC in the USA, and the opening episode is nothing but a blatant rip-off of "The Sting" only without the charm, humor and fun...and with a mediocre, forgettable cast. The exact same cons from the film are presented (updated) and I'm amazed that the producers weren't sued for plagiarism. Perhaps the producers thought that by making two literal references to "The Sting," we viewers would interpret this show as an homage instead of a counterfeit. Well, this viewer isn't buying it. Furthermore, the production values are poor, the sound mix is unbelievably bad, and they even resort to having the characters talk to the camera. Forget this pale imitation and get your hands on the classic 1973 film (available on an excellent DVD).

Match Point (2005)

I walked out of it

[1/10 · 1 January 2006]

Save your time and your money and skip this utterly awful self-indulgent garbage. The characters are completely unbelievable, and the dialog is simply terrible -- real people don't talk this way. I don't know how the story turned out because after 30 minutes, I didn't care to sit through any more, because the plot setup is something you've seen many times before. Every scene went on twice as long as should have, and you can easily see where the scene is going to end up before it gets there. Allen's visual style has always been dependent on his cinematographers, so when he had Gordon Willis or Carlo DiPalma shooting his films, they were visually striking even if the films were not terribly interesting. Here, cinematographer Aderfasin brings no style to the proceedings, so you have a boring film that isn't even worth looking at. IMO, it's time for Mr. Allen to hang it up.