919. The Sweet Hereafter (1997)

Running Time: 112 minutes
Directed By: Atom Egoyan
Written By: Atom Egoyan, from novel by Russell Banks
Main Cast: Ian Holm, Sarah Polley, Bruce Greenwood, Gabrielle Rose, Tom McCamus
Click here to view the trailer

WHEN ALL THE CHILDREN WENT AWAY

According to THE BOOK even Russell Banks, author of The Sweet Hereafter, has admitted that the movie improved upon the novel, proving that the book isn't always better than the movie. However, I'm left with the question of how bad was that book, because while I didn't hate "The Sweet Hereafter", I certainly wouldn't consider it a "must see".

The film revolves around a school bus accident, when one morning as bus driver Dolores (Rose) is driving the children to school, the bus hits an icy patch in the road (or so some claim), Dolores loses control of the vehicle and it crashes through a guardrail, over a hill and through an icy river, killing nearly all aboard. Enter lawyer Mitchell Stephens (Holm), who has arrived in the small town - the type of town where there are no strangers and everyone knows everyone else - to coax the grieving residents to sue for damages and claim that the bus had faulty parts. Most of the community, caught with their guard down, agree to let Mr. Stephens represent them, as he dangles the idea of monetary gain and emotional justice in front of them. Meanwhile, Stephens must deal with his own troubled, drug addicted daughter. The story is told in flashback, focusing on three points of lineage: the days leading up to the bus crash, Stephens as he visits the residents of the community and Stephens as he travels back home to meet with his daughter, following his visit to the town.

SPOILER ALERT!

Yeah, I definitely didn't hate it and the first thing that must be mentioned is the brilliant Ian Holm who MAKES this movie. Without him, "The Sweet Hereafter" is nothing more than a glorified Lifetime film. Holm brings the good and lays his heart out on the screen, particularly during a scene where he recalls a time when his daughter was three years old and was bitten by a black widow spider, nearly dying. It's such a beautiful scene, where you can literally see an actor pour everything they have inside them, into a scene. The rest of the cast is sort of so-so, probably fine in their own right, but clearly being outshone when sharing the stage with Holm. I also liked the mood of the film. Longtime followers of my blog know that I'm always down for a sad, depressing film and usually will chastise a director's efforts to provide a happy ending. Egoyan did exactly the opposite, never worrying about sending the audience home feeling good and always keeping us under a dark cloud. The running theme, as I saw it, seemed to be the loss of youth and how it can effect us, even though we never expect it too. Not only did the town become crippled when they children were taken away, but also Holm's character is emotionally numb due to the loss of his daughter - a once sweet, innocent child, now a drug addled young adult. His character always seems to be on the brink of tears, but like a well that's all dried up, he just can't produce physical proof of emotion anymore. On the other hand, he's also kind of a slime, for preying on the community, but you get the sense that he's just doing his job, going through the motions. You'll notice I keep coming back to that character, as I was quite fascinated with him.

On the other hand, the film was quite slow and never really forced us to care about anyone other than the Holm character. Certain scenes that just sort of seemed out of place were included; for example the scene where it is revealed that Nicole and Sam are engaging in an incestuous relationship. I'm just not sure why that was relevant and you get the sense that if you read the book, it might be more relevant there. The film just never really went anywhere, nothing was ever solved and none of the characters ever came to any sort of breakthrough or developed. You just had a lawyer come in, question a bunch of people and then nothing really ever came of it. Plus, I can't stress enough how I just never cared about anyone besides Stephens, which made a lot of the scenes uninteresting.

RATING: 6/10  I'll give it a '6', but it can thank Holm for the majority of that. I liked the mood and everything, but it lacked elsewhere and just never got me engaged enough to really care about what was happening, or what was going to happen.

MOVIES WATCHED: 711
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 290

August 11, 2013  1:36am

924. Abre los ojos/Open Your Eyes (1997)

Running Time: 117 minutes
Directed By: Alejandro Amenabar
Written By: Alejandro Amenabar, Mateo Gil
Main Cast: Eduardo Noriega, Penelope Cruz, Fele Martinez, Najwa Nimri, Chete Lera
Click here to view the trailer

LIFE IS BUT A DREAM

Switching gears now, we jump to the other end of THE BOOK and start working our way backwards for a little bit. The last movie that I had left in THE BOOK, prior to this evening's viewing, was "Open Your Eyes" - the original version of the 2001 film "Vanilla Sky".

The film, as THE BOOK puts it, is actually one of those films that would do well to be given two viewings, so that the viewer may sop up all everything they can once and then go back through with everything that they learned the first time around. However, the basic plot isn't THAT confusing, so I'll give you the short & sweet version and we'll go from there. Cesar (Noriega) is a handsome, rich, playboy who never spends the night with the same girl twice and who can basically have any woman he wants. During his birthday party, his best friend (Martinez) shows up with a friend, Sofia (Cruz), who Cesar hits it off with. They become acquainted when Cesar is trying to avoid ex-girlfriend Nuria (Nimri) and uses Sofia as a way to keep the ex at bay. He ends up spending the night with Sofia (talking, no funny business) and the next morning, when he leaves her apartment, he is picked up by his ex. With feelings of rejection simmering over, Nuria opts to crash the car with Cesar inside, disfiguring his face severely. Now, plans to reconnect with Sofia and pursue a relationship are basically null & void, as Cesar seeps into a deep depression over the loss of his good looks. The story is told in flashback as Cesar is being detained in a psychiatric detention center, where he's awaiting trial for murder. Wearing a prosthetic mask, so that his disfigurement can be disguised, Cesar recounts his story, dreams and memories to his doctor, Antonio (Lera).

SPOILER ALERT!

Of course, not only are we going to be talking about "Open Your Eyes", but having seen it, I also have no choice but to bring "Vanilla Sky" into the conversation as well. Which one is better? Well, if you go online, particularly to IMDB, you'll find some people getting quite enraged, trying to fight to let their opinion heard. The ones who prefer "Open Your Eyes" are usually, quite adamantly against "Vanilla Sky" and then there's the VS supporters, who are probably children of Hollywood films, perhaps people who don't see a lot of foreign films. While it HAS been quite a few years since I've seen VS (probably 5+ years, in fact), I was astounded at the similarities between the two pictures, that I was able to remember. I really expected this to be a far superior version of the story and honestly, the two are EXTREMELY similar. I mean, unless your a BIG detractor of Tom Cruise (which, hey, I'd understand that) then I really don't get why you'd get in such an uproar defending the original, especially when the two are basically carbon copies of one another. Granted, there is something to be said for the originality of the first one, the grittiness and the fact that it more resembles a thriller, but I'd rate them both very closely on the 1 - 10 scale, to be totally honest with you.

Onto my opinion, which is positive. I really dig the story and perhaps it's because I find the ideas fascinating. In fact, I've always been fascinated with dreams and the process of dreaming. I'm not sure the particulars on why we dream or how we dream, I just know that I've always enjoyed dreaming, waking up to reflect on a new, usually quite odd story that I just happened to conjure up while I was unconscious the night before. "Open Your Eyes" takes the concept of dreaming and mixes it with the concept of cryogenics, another fascinating, scientific idea. Here, the actors are quite good and I have really come to enjoy the talents of Penelope Cruz, having seen her in some Pedro Almodovar work and some Woody Allen work, she's definitely an actress I need to take note of. If I had anything negative to say, I'd just say that I wished I'd seen this one first. The story of "Open Your Eyes"/"Vanilla Sky" is one that really only works to full effect on first viewing. Once you know the secrets and the twists, it just isn't as powerful the next time and the next time and so on. I call it the "I See Dead People" effect - once you know the boy sees dead people, it's just not as fun anymore.

RATING: 8/10  No matter how you slice it, whether it's Cesar or David, Cruise or Noriega, Crowe or Amenabar, this is just a really good story and one that, even if I already know the twists, I always enjoy.

MOVIES WATCHED: 710
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 291

August 10, 2013  1:40am

PINTREST

Quick word about Pintrest, which I'm officially on.

If you want to track my progress  throughout Season Eight of my "1001 Movies I (Apparently) Must See" progress, you can visit me by clicking here. You'll get a very brief synopsis on my thoughts for each and every movie I watch this season, a picture and my rating. I also have plans to make a pintrest board dedicated to all 210 of my TOP 20 films.

So yeah, check me out over there, like me, follow me, do whatever it is you do to someone you want to keep in touch with. Thanks a gob.

August 9, 2013  2:15am

225. RASHOMON (1950)

Running Time: 88 minutes
Directed By: Akira Kurosawa
Written By: Ryunosuke Akutagawa, Akira Kurosawa, Shinobu Hashimoto, from the stories Rashomon and In a Grove by Ryunosuke Akutagawa
Main Cast: Toshiro Mifune, Machiko Kyo, Masayuki Mori, Takashi Shimura, Minoru Chiaki
Click here to view the trailer

ON MY JOURNEY I MET A MAN NAMED AKIRA

Moving right along and getting two reviews in within the span of twenty-four hours, we come to one of the heavy hitters in THE BOOK, speaking not only of the title, but also the man sitting in the director's chair. Of course, I'm talking about "Rashomon" and the iconic Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa.

The film is actually pretty short and the plot is really simple, so summing up the events shouldn't be that much of a task. At the core of the story, we have a three characters: a bandit (Mifune), a samurai (Mori) and the wife of the samurai (Kyo). One day, while the samurai and his wife are traveling through a patch of forest, the bandit, also happening to be in this same patch of forest, takes notice of the wife and covets her for himself. One thing leads to another and the bandit rapes the wife while the samurai is tied up and afterwards, the samurai is killed. The entire story is told through the use of double flashback, as we're not only hearing the story of the rape/murder as it as told at the trial, we're also hearing an account of the trial, as told by a woodcutter (an eyewitness to the events in question) and a priest, as they recall the events of the trial and what happened in the forest to a passerby, as they keep dry while a heavy rainstorm pours over their heads. During the course of the film, we hear four different versions of what happened to the samurai, as told by the bandit, the wife, the dead samurai (through the use of a medium) and the woodcutter.

SPOILER ALERT!

Yeah, I'd say that about covers the events of the film. Let's see, where to begin, where to begin...

I'd seen Kurosawa's "Rashomon" once before, during a time when I was swallowing up films left and right, trying my best to expand my cinematic knowledge. Back then, I remember really disliking the film, although I couldn't remember why, even as I headed into this second viewing. This time I was optimistic - my tastes HAD changed considerably since the first viewing and my watching of the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" has proved on numerous occasions to change my mind about films I previously hated. Therefore, I wasn't (nor am I ever) too concerned about disliking it again. If I did, I did and if I didn't, well that'd be even better. Well, while I didn't dislike the film, I can't say I understand why people go so crazy for it. Let's just jump right into it, shall we?

The big thing I don't get is this: Why should we not believe the woodcutter? I've done a little homework and the basic premise of the film seems to be that everyone spins the story in their favor, but I'm not getting how the woodcutter's story is spun in his favor. Sure, he omits the part about the pearl dagger, but I think it's pretty clear that the bandit killed the samurai, no question. And that's the part that really matters! So what if the woodcutter stole the wife's dagger, he at least has to be telling the truth about who killed the samurai, right? I think it would've been much better if we were left still unsure about who killed the samurai, whether it was his wife, the bandit, himself or even a fourth person. In my opinion, there's no question as to how the samurai was killed (by the bandit) and by making the home base Rashomon and the storyteller the woodcutter, there's no reason why we shouldn't believe the woodcutter and for the most part, his version of the events.

Hey, I like the "differing viewpoints of the same story" plot device as much as the next guy, but is it possible that since this is the first notable example of that device that it just wasn't as polished as other examples, which would come later? I think that's a fair statement. The film isn't bad by any means, it's just that I think there could've been a few easy steps taken to leave the audience yearning to know who killed the samurai and why and a few other details. As it is, I feel that Kurosawa failed to really leave the audience wanting answers and was more concerned with simply leaving them with an epic film, filled with beautiful photography and symbolic structure. I'll say this too, I didn't like the ending. All the stuff with the baby and the final conversation between the woodcutter and the priest, I just didn't care for it. For me, it just bogged everything down and hung around just a little too long. However, speaking of the baby stuff and the woodcutter who offers to adopt the abandoned child, it is here where we can come to forgive the woodcutter for stealing the dagger, realizing that he needs to sell it to earn money for his large family. No one else was around to claim it and it's rightful claimant was now deceased, so why shouldn't he take it. Yes, the more I think of it, the more I really wish Kurosawa had either left the woodcutter's story out or altered it to be more ambiguous. Unless I'm totally missing the point, this would've made the film far better, mysterious and engaging.

RATING: 6.5/10  I could see this growing on me, to tell you the truth. Everything above is really just a lot of nitpicking and really maybe I'm just upset with myself for not liking "Rashomon" more. If you're checking this out for the first time, beware...it may take a few viewings before you can really accept and appreciate it.

MOVIES WATCHED: 709
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 292

ON DECK
Open Your Eyes (1997 - Alejandro Amenabar)
The Sweet Hereafter (1997 - Atom Egoyan)
The Butcher Boy (1997 - Neil Jordan)
Princess Mononoke (1997 - Hayao Miyazaki)
Happy Together (1997 - Wong Kar-wai)

August 9, 2013  1:50am

223. Orphee/Orpheus (1950)

Running Time: 95 minutes
Directed By: Jean Cocteau
Written By: Jean Cocteau
Main Cast: Jean Marais, Francois Perier, Maria Casares, Marie Dea, Edouard Dermithe
Click here to view the trailer

POETIC

Writing this from the laptop (as per usual nowadays) but not at the comfort of my desk chair, but rather with the laptop in my lap (imagine that) and sitting comfortably on my bed. Honestly, it seems very informal not to be sitting in my swivel computer chair right now, but lets see how this goes. "Orpheus" is the movie of the day and it's the first entry in THE BOOK for the 1950s. If everything goes as planned, the rest of the season will be filled out evenly with films from the 1950s and the 1990s.

Last season I watched "Black Orpheus" and therefore I was slightly familiar with the story of "Orpheus", although to be honest, I've almost entirely forgotten that film. The film starts with Orpheus (Marais), a famous poet, arriving at an outdoor coffee shop, to meet a friend. The friend chit chats with him a bit and points out another poet, up and comer Cegeste (Dermithe). Turns out Cegeste is drunk, one thing leads to another and Cegeste is run over by a couple of bikers. Cegeste's handler, the Princess (Casares), has the limp body of Cegeste loaded into her car and calls for Orpheus to join them, since he witnessed the whole thing. Orpheus agrees and he's plunged into a world of mystery. The two return to the Princess' mansion, where she meets up with the two bikers that ran Cegeste down and then proceeds to seemingly raise Cegeste from the dead. Orpheus doesn't know what to make of any of this and before he knows it, he's plunged back into the real world, where he's to return home to his wife, Eurydice (Dea). There, he just isn't himself anymore, being very short with Eurydice. He's accompanied by Heurtebise (Perier), a chauffeur for the Princess, who we find out is actually Death - the Princess Death. Orpheus becomes obsessed with secret messages coming from the car radio and reuniting with the Princess Death. Later, Death comes and takes Eurydice and the only way to get her back is for Orpheus to go into the "other world" via a mirror (the means of travel for Death, ghosts and other supernatural beings). It turns out that Death and Orpheus have romantic feelings for one another, as does Heurtebise for Eurydice. It's just one big supernatural love quadrangle.

You know, I started this movie on Monday night and made it about fifteen minutes in before realizing I was too tired and calling it quits. The following night, Tuesday night, I tried again, got about forty minutes in this time and once again got too tired to give it my proper attention. So, last night, I was finally able to finish it off and as much as I really wanted to like this one, I got the sense that I just wasn't in the mood for it. I never flat out said to myself, "Man, I'm just not in the mood for this", but I just could never quite settle into the picture and that must have been the ultimate problem. Honestly, there wasn't a lot of bad here: the actors were superb, to say the least; the special effects were ahead of their time; the dialogue was quotable, real and poetic, yet not too poetic, the photography was great and the story was good without too much resembling a fairy tale (like "Beauty and the Beast"). I just don't have a lot of criticisms for "Orpheus", yet I still found myself continually checking the time to see when the film was going to be over and I'm really not sure why. I think it was a case of me just not being in the mood for the film at the time and honestly, this one REALLY deserves a rewatch someday, when I can get more into it. Honestly, I wouldn't mind checking out the entire "Orphic Trilogy", especially if it shows as much potential as this. For now, I'll leave it at that. I'm just sort of at a loss for words on this one, as it showed so much potential, yet still, somehow left me with a dry taste in my mouth.

RATING: 6/10  Definitely deserves a rewatch someday. I really can't tell if I was flat out bored by it or just not in the mood for it. It was definitely a feeling I don't walk away from movies with often.

MOVIES WATCHED: 708
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 293

August 8, 2013  2:31pm

212. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)

Running Time: 127 minutes
Directed By: John Huston
Written By: John Huston, B. Traven, from novel by B. Traven
Main Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Walter Huston, Tim Holt, Bruce Bennett, Barton MacLane
Click here to view the trailer

THERE'S GOLD IN THEM THERE HILLS!

With the watching of "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre", I can finally say farewell to the decade of the 1940s and the salmon colored information boxes that go along with them in the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book. I've now officially watched the first 222 films form THE BOOK and am moving right along.

The plot of "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" is fairly simple and starts out with Fred C. Dobbs (Bogart), an American staying in Tampico, Mexico, who is flat broke and reduced to begging for pesos. After a little while, Dobbs meets up with Bob Curtin (Holt) and the two gents end up staying in a Salvation Army type place, where they meet Howard (Huston), an old prospector who tells stories of gold hunting. Eventually the two manage to make a few bucks, by working for and then beating their earned money out of a crooked foreman and decide to take their earnings back to Howard and put it toward prospecting supplies. Howard agrees and the three head into the Sierra Madre mountains, where Howard is certain they'll find gold, become rich and be able to live like fat cats. Well, turns out Howard wasn't wrong, as the trio do end up striking gold. However, paranoia and greed get the best of them, especially Dobbs, who can't sleep wondering if one of his comrades is going to rob him of his share of the loot. Later, the trio is joined by an intruder, James Cody (Bennett), who had been planning to prospect the hills himself and offers to make their trio a quartet, as long as they agree to split whatever they find from here on out into fourths. The gang decide to kill him instead, but before they can do the deed themselves, Cody is murdered by a gang of Mexican bandits, which also spells trouble for Howard, Dobbs and Curtin. All of that and there's still about an hour of screen time left and the adventure is far from over!

SPOILER ALERT!!

Much like the trio of prospectors who went deep into the mountains of the Sierra Madre to hunt for gold, I myself was on a mission to find something as well. "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" was my eighth Humphrey Bogart movie from THE BOOK (in fact, I don't think I've seen any Bogart films that I haven't already watched for THE BOOK, so it was my eighth Bogart movie, period) and the first one (besides "Angels with Dirty Faces", in which he's not a main character) that I really took a liking to. You see, I'd been on a mission for quite sometime to find a good Humphrey Bogart film and finally, finally I've found one that didn't leave me hating the iconic actor even more. You know what did it? The fact that he didn't play his usual bad ass, cool cat, chain smoking, dame dazzling, suit wearing self. IN TOTSM Bogart plays the bad guy, believe it or not and what a job he does! I mean, I didn't just not hate him in this, I actually loved him in this and can confidently and honestly say that he had the best performance in the picture, with a cast that included Walter Huston EARNING an Oscar.

However, it's my blog and as per usual, I just can't write a review without a little griping. My gripes are somewhat minor though, so just bear with me and we'll get to the finish line as quick and as painless as possible. Honestly, I just wish they'd left us alone with Dobbs, Curtin and Howard for a while longer, without involving Cody, bandits and Indians. In a perfect world, the three would've gone mad from paranoia and greed and been left at the end, ready and willing to kill one another, imagining schemes and double crosses in their heads. To me, the paranoia & greed element was the core of the story and that should've been at the forefront, whereas it seemed Huston was much more occupied with just making an solid action-adventure story. Not that there's anything wrong with that, because as it is Huston DID make a really good action-adventure story. All I'm saying is that this one had high '10' potential and it just didn't get there.

Other than that, I thought this film was a ton of fun. You had a fantastic cast, which included a Bogart performance that I could not only tolerate, but actually really liked and is easily the best thing he's ever done. You had a great story, tied up tight at the end with a fantastic finale. It was neither a happy ending, nor a sad ending and it was all tied up nice & neat. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that if Howard and Curtin had wound up with the gold, that would've reduced the rating by quite a bit. I hate tacked on happy endings and that's the last thing I wanted to see here. As it is, they were able to make sense of a good, happy ending, without the heroes getting their gold back. I'll also say that as much as I didn't care for the inclusion of outsiders, I did love the reading of the letter from Cody's wife (now widow) - it was indeed a heart wrenching moment. All in all it was a super fun night at the movies and hell freezes over as Bogart gets a little love from yours truly.

RATING: 7/10  I can't go higher than that, in good conscience (for now anyway), but this is really good and well worth your time.

MOVIES WATCHED: 707
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 294

August 4, 2013  10:53pm

199. The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947)

Running Time: 104 minutes
Directed By: Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Written By: R.A. Dick, Philip Dunne, from novel by R.A. Dick
Main Cast: Gene Tierney, Rex Harrison, George Sanders, Edna Best, Natalie Wood
Click here to view the trailer

FIRST 200 FILMS IN THE BOOK - CHECK!

Yep, that's right. The first two hundred movies in THE BOOK are all officially watched and soon will be reviewed. It's a milestone, but in a project full of little milestones, there's just no use harping on it. In fact, the only milestone worth harping over now is the finish line, which is still a ways away. As it is, onto the business at hand...ghosts and stuff.

Gene Tierney stars as Lucy Muir, a widow who, upon films opening, is breaking to her in-laws (well, technically her former in-laws) that she soon plans to move out and start a life of her own, along with her child Anna (Wood). They're devastated and try to convince her to stay with them, although you get the idea that it's more for selfish reasons than genuine reasons. Lucy, however, is adamant about beginning a new life and soon visits a realtor. The realtor shows her several houses for rent, one of which IS NOT Gull Cottage, a supposedly haunted mansion overlooking the ocean. Lucy continues to insist on seeing Gull Cottage and her realtor finally breaks down and takes her there, where she finds out that the house is indeed haunted. However, Lucy decides that she likes the place anyway and insists on renting it. It isn't long after their arrival ("their" being Lucy, Anna and Martha, the maid) that the ghost shows himself to Lucy. The ghost is Daniel Gregg, a salty, old, foul mouthed sea captain who doesn't want anyone occupying his former fortress and would instead see it turned into a home for retired seamen. However, he admires Lucy's spunk and in fact, is quite attracted to her. After a while the two strike up a (sort of) romance, spending evenings talking and sharing emotions. When Lucy goes broke, Daniel (who calls her Lucia) tells her that he has a book in him and offers to dictate it for her. He guarantees it will sell and that she'll be able to make money off of it. It turns out he's right and when she goes to see a publisher about selling the book, she meets Miles Fairley (Sanders), a potential suitor who is gaga for Lucy.

My wife's always trying to get me to watch those Nicholas Sparks movies and while sometimes she begs long enough that I can't help but give in, I almost always hate them and anything remotely resembling them. I'm pretty sure that love stories were made for single people. People who can sit around, cry and wonder why they can't find a dead sea captain to come and haunt them, so that they can fall in love and live happily ever after. Long story short, I'm not single, I don't require a dead sea captain and I didn't care too much for this movie, which is a shame because I was really looking forward to checking out another Rex Harrison flick (loved him in "My Fair Lady" last season). I just couldn't lose myself in this one, not one bit and at the end of the day I found it to be overly sentimental and really nonsensical. I just couldn't wrap my head around a dead sea captain having talks with this woman and getting upset because she cries and he doesn't like it when women cry, because "even when he was alive, he couldn't stand that" - puh-lease. Also speaking of stupid moments, what was with the in-laws? Were they supposed to be the villains of the script? If so, they're the nicest antagonists I've ever heard of, getting over emotional just because their daughter-in-law/sister-in-law won't move back in with them. Don't these people know that in movies and television no one likes their in-laws and especially when the husband that links the you together ceases to be. Geez, you could tell that this was fifty years before "Everybody Loves Raymond".

I'm trying my best to be witty here folks, is it working? Anyway, I'll stop the humor and wrap the review with a thumb pointing down and a recommendation to avoid. Unless you're like my wife and you just LOVE these types of romantic movies, you're probably not going to care too much for this. Even so, I highly doubt my wife would even care for this, as it slacks off in the romance department and makes up for it in the pointless & silly department. The little good that was in there was provided mostly by the males, with Rex Harrison and George Sanders turning in noteworthy performances. Gene Tierney LOOKED marvelous, but failed to impress me on a talent level. Must see? Nah.

RATING: 4/10  So we're five movies into the season and thus far, all I have to show for it is "Return of the Jedi". Oh well, luckily there's still ninety-five flicks to go.

MOVIES WATCHED: 706
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 295

August 3, 2013  1:38am