I enjoyed this much more than I expected, mostly due to the fact that I had no idea what it was about, and that the only image I’ve had of the film is that stupid (yet iconic) shot of Lancaster and Kerr kissing on the beach. (I call it stupid because the shot is less than two seconds and that affair is only one of three storylines. ) I haven’t seen a lot of classic films that have intertwining storylines, and with a great cast like this. Add onto that, the negative side of the military that we still see in movies, today (specifically, abuse - reminded me of A Few Good Men and Full Metal Jacket). Very refreshing.
Dumb. I like Taylor Cole, and she's fine in this, but she can't save the lazy screenplay. I know Hallmark's pattern is for the two beautiful leads in each movie, but he's single, she's single, they give each other bedroom eyes and yet, he still lets her set him up on two dates, because..... ? Dumb. Also, Ryan Paevey is not a good actor. He should stick to just modeling.
After watching Stormy Weather (also released in 1943) first, I was disappointed with this one. Maybe it’s not fair to compare them, since this came out first and Stormy Weather has more lively performances (specifically with Bojangles, Cab Calloway and the *Nicholas Brothers* in one the greatest dance finales of all time). Cabin in the Sky does have a better plot, though, and it’s still worth watching for film history buffs. But for my money, Stormy Weather is the one to watch.
I don't even know where to begin. I'm a Gen-X, so I don't know how I never saw this movie, but it did NOT age well. It's a Back to the Future rip-off, but with bizarre casting choices (Kathleen Turner - who was a bad choice to “play” a teenager - was about 32 years old and Helen Hunt is only 9 years younger than her, playing her daughter), terrible acting (what's up with Nic Cage's VOICE?! He's terrible!), screenplay, and directing (by the Francis Ford Coppola?!). Even the credits look like a low budget Hallmark movie. Ugh... how do people love this film?
NOTE: While this book of classic Christmas films includes most of the great ones, it should be noted that it has omitted some obvious classics like Bachelor Mother (1930), Scrooge (1970), and most of all Meet John Doe (1939), which seems like a serious error on the author's part. Omitting those classics, while including some modern classics (from A Christmas Story to Love Actually) is also controversial.
I loved this movie. Well-deserved Oscar for best original screenplay. They waste zero time to get right into the meat of the story and for a movie that mostly takes place in just one location (inside the parents’ house), I never found it boring or dull. Sidney Poitier is such a commanding actor, same as Spenser Tracy, so each scene they share is a treat. It’s smart, great dialogue and performances. Highly recommend.
What was up with that bizarre “dance number” with the delivery boy and the hot girl???
I'm glad I watched Annie Get Your Gun before watching this, because I enjoyed this one much more. Three things I couldn't stand about AGYG were NOT in this one: 1. From AGYG: Howard Keel's operatic singing, 2. The love interest (Frank Butler in AGYG and Toby Walker in AO) is not a total douchebag, and 3. The romance isn't completely built on a chauvinistic view (in AGYG, the total douchebag can't be with Annie as long as she's a better sharpshooter).
For a 1935 western romance, I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. Although, I was hoping for more rough and unrefinement from Stanwyck, but we only get a tiny taste of that during her first match with Toby. That would be my biggest complaint. Oh well, at least it wiped the painful memory I had of Annie Get Your Gun, and the finale with Sitting Bull had some very funny moments.
Delightful, if unrefined, Western. After seeing what bad reviews this movie received on IMDb, I was expecting a major stinker. But the first half-hour is so damn good, it was easy to stick around for the silly love story and drama that followed. I can only guess that most reviewers are grading this on a Stanwyck-MacMurray scale, as their other three films are much higher quality (and Stanwyck is only really in the third act). The screenplay and direction could have definitely been more refined, but for a 78-minute western that has all the goods: a lynching, revenge, bank robbery, gun fight, and betrayal, and to top it off, the protagonist, MacMurray (along with Ward Bond) is on the other side of the law, it deserves a better rating.
Hi, I’m 47 years old and just now catching up on TCM... my first Fred and Ginger movie was Swing Time, which I really enjoyed. But this one is just over the top and frustrating without being funny. If I’m going to watch a screwball comedy, it has to at least be funny. Although I never found Fred Astaire to have good comedic chops... or even acting ability, for that matter. Yup. I said it. I have one more Fred and Ginger flick to check off (Shall We Dance) and then I’m done. Btw, I adore Ginger Rogers, so I that helps.
Hated just about every minute of this movie. The only story I liked was Andrew McCarthy's mysterious "Is he gay or not?" story, but even that ended up totally stupid. I was 13 years old when this came out, so I was too young to see it then and I just never got around to seeing it, since. I wish I had kept it that way. I need to take a permanent vacation from Joel Schumacher's movies.
The movie is bad. REALLY bad. Not just the acting, directing, screenplay, lack of plot, and inconsistent characters, but the MUSIC makes it so much worse. In one scene, the score will change from over-dramatic (think Gone With the Wind) to, literally, a Looney Tunes or Little Rascals-type comedic *womp-womp-woooooomp*, as if you're watching a sitcom.
BUT, this movie is historic, granted, not for good reasons. Two words summarize this entire movie: Jane Russell. She is, literally, the only reason to watch this movie, but not because of her great acting... Better yet, three words summarize this entire movie: Jane Russell's cleavage. This movie is historic for how much controversy it stirred up back in the early '40s, due to how much Russell was sexualized (not to mention a rape scene - which takes place in complete dark, so you don't see anything, but there's dialogue so it's very clear what's happening). The campaign for this movie was all about this sexy buxom newcomer. Billboards were literally plastered all over Broadway in NYC. Apparently, playwright George S. Kaufman saw these billboards while on Broadway and said to his companion, "They should call the movie 'A Tale of Two Titties'." The story of that campaign and the film's controversy is better than the movie itself.
The terrible story revolves around Billy the Kid and Doc Holliday, with Pat Garrett on their trail throughout the film. (Did Billy the Kid and Doc Holliday ever meet in real life? It's debatable.) Pat Garrett is played by Thomas Mitchell, who is way too old for the part, as Pat and Billy were maybe 10 years apart in real life. Mitchell is best known for playing Uncle Billy in It's a Wonderful Life, which is one of my favorite movies, so I enjoyed watching Mitchell in this role, as ridiculous as it is. There is one historic element of this movie that is, in fact, interesting.
At the end of the movie, Pat Garrett actually lets Billy the Kid go and plans to simulate his death so that he can live free from the law (in the movie, it doesn't go EXACTLY as this plan, but Billy does get away and it was Garrett's plan). Not too long before this movie was made, there was a man claiming to be Billy the Kid and that, not only was he not shot by Pat Garrett, but that Garrett let him escape. (That man was one of two claiming to be the real Billy the Kid; the second was Brushy Bill Roberts, who Emilio Estevez played in Young Guns II, also playing to the myth that Billy was never killed by Pat Garrett.)
The title is slightly misleading, as if it's solely based on the character of Luke Skywalker and his family, because this is essentially a making-of documentary of Rise of Skywalker, going through the major scenes and character arcs in the film. I suppose it's not an issue, since Empire of Dreams is the only feature documentary we need about the Star Wars saga. What makes this documentary great is that it seamlessly weaves in archive footage from the original trilogy that is relevant to the subject on the new film, such as makeup or puppeteering. And of course, including old footage of Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, and our favorite, Carrie Fisher is especially a treat.
I'm not a horror-movie fan, and I really enjoyed this - probably because it's more suspense, than horror. However, to enjoy this, you *really* need to turn your brain off, because the parents do two very UNFORGIVABLY-stupid things in the movie. (See below for spoilers on that.) But the good is pretty damn good: It’s unique (AFAIK, since I don’t normally watch these kind of modern flicks), the sound is amazing, the suspense is top-notch, and all actors, including the kids, and especially Emily Blunt, are terrific. Also, high-praise for John Krasinski for an early directorial effort, especially directing his wife for the toughest scenes of all. Seriously, she should have been nominated for an Oscar (she WON the SAG award for Best Supporting Role).
SPOILERS:
I did have a major problem with Evelyn (Emily Blunt) getting pregnant *after* these events began, for three big reasons: 1. Why bring another child into this alien-infested world? 2. …Especially after they already lost a child to the aliens. 3. A baby CAN NOT be silenced (nor can the mother giving birth). And what’s most frustrating about this, is that this issue could have been fixed SO EASILY, by simply having Evelyn be pregnant at the beginning of the film, which starts at 89 days since the alien invasion - so make her four-months pregnant. Then make the follow-up scene 5 months later (instead of a year) and boom, having the baby totally makes sense; couldn’t be helped - it also makes perfect sense why the time jump (to get to the birth, which is an AMAZING scene, granted). This is a no-brainer, and even if they needed to do reshoots to fix this, it’s literally two locations to do so (grocery store and bridge). That *almost* ruined the movie for me. The other unforgivably-stupid thing the parents do is in the beginning, when they decide to walk in FRONT of their youngest child to make sure he keeps quiet. (and for the record, I’m a parent. ;-)
Meh... Best thing about this movie is the soundtrack. Amazing playlist of the grunge era, with music from all of the iconic bands, except Nirvana (apparently, Cobain just didn’t want to contribute; but there’s a cover of one of their songs in the movie). If I had seen this in 1992, I’d probably like it much more, but watching it now for the first time, I have to say it’s just not a great rom-com. It’s not very funny, bad directing choices (surprisingly, since I’m a fan of Cameron Crowe), the characters aren’t interesting (except Matt Dillon), and it just draaaaaags - it’s a very long 99 minutes. Again, though, I LOVED the music and the cameos of the bands from that era was pretty swell (Cornell and Staley especially) and it was fun to see several actors in early roles; particularly Paul Giamatti in one of his first films who is credited as the “kissing man”.
Worse than I expected. Bad acting, writing, and casting - WTF was Guy Ritchie thinking with Jafar?! The actor is all wrong. Too short and his voice makes him sound like a total wuss. And I WANT to like Will Smith as an actor, but it’s just hard when he goes for delivery rather than emotion. And here, I constantly felt like he’s delivering his lines in front of a green screen (if he’s in fact acting with the other actors, possibly wearing a performance-capture suit?, then his performance is even worse, IMHO).
Interesting plot up until the big reveal and finale. I was hoping for the usually-strong Stanwyck to stand up to Bogart, which was the main reason I watched it, but she’s just a helpless victim instead. Very disappointing, indeed. Might have been worth it, though, to watch the only film those icons two were in together and also for the surprising homage (easter egg) to Casablanca, from a humorous line that Bogart delivers early on in the picture.
Cheap production. Terrible acting. Recommended only for die-hard fans looking to check off a box (Prohibition movies, Robert Blake, or just gangster films in general).
Yeah, this one has not aged well. Aside from the creepy/1950s chauvinism, it’s just boring. I’ve never seen a movie in which there’s only one main character who has so much dialogue talking to himself. This was based on a play?! Ugh. Monroe is the only reason to watch this. There was no one like her. Ironically, the iconic scene of her dress flying up on top of the subway vent is not how I imagined - after seeing so many photos and statues of her. Only her legs are shown, not her whole body. Was it even her?
For some reason, it took me forever to finally watch this movie, which I can’t really explain, since White Christmas is one of my favorite holiday movies. And while watching Holiday Inn, it just made me want to watch White Christmas instead. Fred Astaire’s conniving woman-stealing character, Ted, is hard to watch, especially since his behavior is so easily accepted by everyone else in the movie, especially by Jim Hardy (Bing). And how can I care about Linda after she left Jim so easily for Ted? Jim is the only character I care about. I would have liked it more if Linda wasn’t so shallow. Sorry, but other than the iconic songs and Astaire's dancing (*not* his acting), I just don’t get the appeal for this movie. Also, the blackface number is a sign of the times, so I can excuse it, but I can’t ignore it. 5/10 in my book.
Anna Kendrick is charming, as always, but that’s about the best I can say about this one. Bill Hader is barely in it and not allowed to shine. I’m a sucker for Christmas movies, but this one just sucks. I’d suggest Fred Claus instead, which has a similar plot and especially finale.
Good family movie, but Seabiscuit is MUCH better. This one *feels* like a Disney movie, which is fine for a family movie. Although the true story of the amazing feat that Secretariat accomplished might be worth a watch if you want a second horse-race movie.
Comments 51 - 75 of 106
Movie comment on The Secret of My Success
TomReagan
Ugh... this did NOT age well. ‘80s cheese at its worst.Movie comment on Don't Make Waves
TomReagan
97 minutes I’ll never get back. One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen.Movie comment on From Here to Eternity
TomReagan
I enjoyed this much more than I expected, mostly due to the fact that I had no idea what it was about, and that the only image I’ve had of the film is that stupid (yet iconic) shot of Lancaster and Kerr kissing on the beach. (I call it stupid because the shot is less than two seconds and that affair is only one of three storylines. ) I haven’t seen a lot of classic films that have intertwining storylines, and with a great cast like this. Add onto that, the negative side of the military that we still see in movies, today (specifically, abuse - reminded me of A Few Good Men and Full Metal Jacket). Very refreshing.Movie comment on Matching Hearts
TomReagan
Dumb. I like Taylor Cole, and she's fine in this, but she can't save the lazy screenplay. I know Hallmark's pattern is for the two beautiful leads in each movie, but he's single, she's single, they give each other bedroom eyes and yet, he still lets her set him up on two dates, because..... ? Dumb. Also, Ryan Paevey is not a good actor. He should stick to just modeling.Movie comment on Cabin in the Sky
TomReagan
After watching Stormy Weather (also released in 1943) first, I was disappointed with this one. Maybe it’s not fair to compare them, since this came out first and Stormy Weather has more lively performances (specifically with Bojangles, Cab Calloway and the *Nicholas Brothers* in one the greatest dance finales of all time). Cabin in the Sky does have a better plot, though, and it’s still worth watching for film history buffs. But for my money, Stormy Weather is the one to watch.Movie comment on Peggy Sue Got Married
TomReagan
I don't even know where to begin. I'm a Gen-X, so I don't know how I never saw this movie, but it did NOT age well. It's a Back to the Future rip-off, but with bizarre casting choices (Kathleen Turner - who was a bad choice to “play” a teenager - was about 32 years old and Helen Hunt is only 9 years younger than her, playing her daughter), terrible acting (what's up with Nic Cage's VOICE?! He's terrible!), screenplay, and directing (by the Francis Ford Coppola?!). Even the credits look like a low budget Hallmark movie. Ugh... how do people love this film?Toplist comment on TCM's Christmas in the Movies
TomReagan
NOTE: While this book of classic Christmas films includes most of the great ones, it should be noted that it has omitted some obvious classics like Bachelor Mother (1930), Scrooge (1970), and most of all Meet John Doe (1939), which seems like a serious error on the author's part. Omitting those classics, while including some modern classics (from A Christmas Story to Love Actually) is also controversial.Movie comment on Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
TomReagan
I loved this movie. Well-deserved Oscar for best original screenplay. They waste zero time to get right into the meat of the story and for a movie that mostly takes place in just one location (inside the parents’ house), I never found it boring or dull. Sidney Poitier is such a commanding actor, same as Spenser Tracy, so each scene they share is a treat. It’s smart, great dialogue and performances. Highly recommend.What was up with that bizarre “dance number” with the delivery boy and the hot girl???
Toplist comment on Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay
TomReagan
This list is in dire need of an update. ICM needs a way to co-author lists for maintenance.Movie comment on Annie Oakley
TomReagan
I'm glad I watched Annie Get Your Gun before watching this, because I enjoyed this one much more. Three things I couldn't stand about AGYG were NOT in this one: 1. From AGYG: Howard Keel's operatic singing, 2. The love interest (Frank Butler in AGYG and Toby Walker in AO) is not a total douchebag, and 3. The romance isn't completely built on a chauvinistic view (in AGYG, the total douchebag can't be with Annie as long as she's a better sharpshooter).For a 1935 western romance, I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. Although, I was hoping for more rough and unrefinement from Stanwyck, but we only get a tiny taste of that during her first match with Toby. That would be my biggest complaint. Oh well, at least it wiped the painful memory I had of Annie Get Your Gun, and the finale with Sitting Bull had some very funny moments.
Movie comment on The Moonlighter
TomReagan
Delightful, if unrefined, Western. After seeing what bad reviews this movie received on IMDb, I was expecting a major stinker. But the first half-hour is so damn good, it was easy to stick around for the silly love story and drama that followed. I can only guess that most reviewers are grading this on a Stanwyck-MacMurray scale, as their other three films are much higher quality (and Stanwyck is only really in the third act). The screenplay and direction could have definitely been more refined, but for a 78-minute western that has all the goods: a lynching, revenge, bank robbery, gun fight, and betrayal, and to top it off, the protagonist, MacMurray (along with Ward Bond) is on the other side of the law, it deserves a better rating.Movie comment on Top Hat
TomReagan
Hi, I’m 47 years old and just now catching up on TCM... my first Fred and Ginger movie was Swing Time, which I really enjoyed. But this one is just over the top and frustrating without being funny. If I’m going to watch a screwball comedy, it has to at least be funny. Although I never found Fred Astaire to have good comedic chops... or even acting ability, for that matter. Yup. I said it. I have one more Fred and Ginger flick to check off (Shall We Dance) and then I’m done. Btw, I adore Ginger Rogers, so I that helps.Movie comment on St. Elmo's Fire
TomReagan
Hated just about every minute of this movie. The only story I liked was Andrew McCarthy's mysterious "Is he gay or not?" story, but even that ended up totally stupid. I was 13 years old when this came out, so I was too young to see it then and I just never got around to seeing it, since. I wish I had kept it that way. I need to take a permanent vacation from Joel Schumacher's movies.Movie comment on The Outlaw
TomReagan
The movie is bad. REALLY bad. Not just the acting, directing, screenplay, lack of plot, and inconsistent characters, but the MUSIC makes it so much worse. In one scene, the score will change from over-dramatic (think Gone With the Wind) to, literally, a Looney Tunes or Little Rascals-type comedic *womp-womp-woooooomp*, as if you're watching a sitcom.BUT, this movie is historic, granted, not for good reasons. Two words summarize this entire movie: Jane Russell. She is, literally, the only reason to watch this movie, but not because of her great acting... Better yet, three words summarize this entire movie: Jane Russell's cleavage. This movie is historic for how much controversy it stirred up back in the early '40s, due to how much Russell was sexualized (not to mention a rape scene - which takes place in complete dark, so you don't see anything, but there's dialogue so it's very clear what's happening). The campaign for this movie was all about this sexy buxom newcomer. Billboards were literally plastered all over Broadway in NYC. Apparently, playwright George S. Kaufman saw these billboards while on Broadway and said to his companion, "They should call the movie 'A Tale of Two Titties'." The story of that campaign and the film's controversy is better than the movie itself.
The terrible story revolves around Billy the Kid and Doc Holliday, with Pat Garrett on their trail throughout the film. (Did Billy the Kid and Doc Holliday ever meet in real life? It's debatable.) Pat Garrett is played by Thomas Mitchell, who is way too old for the part, as Pat and Billy were maybe 10 years apart in real life. Mitchell is best known for playing Uncle Billy in It's a Wonderful Life, which is one of my favorite movies, so I enjoyed watching Mitchell in this role, as ridiculous as it is. There is one historic element of this movie that is, in fact, interesting.
Movie comment on The Skywalker Legacy
TomReagan
The title is slightly misleading, as if it's solely based on the character of Luke Skywalker and his family, because this is essentially a making-of documentary of Rise of Skywalker, going through the major scenes and character arcs in the film. I suppose it's not an issue, since Empire of Dreams is the only feature documentary we need about the Star Wars saga. What makes this documentary great is that it seamlessly weaves in archive footage from the original trilogy that is relevant to the subject on the new film, such as makeup or puppeteering. And of course, including old footage of Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, and our favorite, Carrie Fisher is especially a treat.Movie comment on A Quiet Place
TomReagan
I'm not a horror-movie fan, and I really enjoyed this - probably because it's more suspense, than horror. However, to enjoy this, you *really* need to turn your brain off, because the parents do two very UNFORGIVABLY-stupid things in the movie. (See below for spoilers on that.) But the good is pretty damn good: It’s unique (AFAIK, since I don’t normally watch these kind of modern flicks), the sound is amazing, the suspense is top-notch, and all actors, including the kids, and especially Emily Blunt, are terrific. Also, high-praise for John Krasinski for an early directorial effort, especially directing his wife for the toughest scenes of all. Seriously, she should have been nominated for an Oscar (she WON the SAG award for Best Supporting Role).SPOILERS:
Movie comment on Singles
TomReagan
Meh... Best thing about this movie is the soundtrack. Amazing playlist of the grunge era, with music from all of the iconic bands, except Nirvana (apparently, Cobain just didn’t want to contribute; but there’s a cover of one of their songs in the movie). If I had seen this in 1992, I’d probably like it much more, but watching it now for the first time, I have to say it’s just not a great rom-com. It’s not very funny, bad directing choices (surprisingly, since I’m a fan of Cameron Crowe), the characters aren’t interesting (except Matt Dillon), and it just draaaaaags - it’s a very long 99 minutes. Again, though, I LOVED the music and the cameos of the bands from that era was pretty swell (Cornell and Staley especially) and it was fun to see several actors in early roles; particularly Paul Giamatti in one of his first films who is credited as the “kissing man”.Movie comment on Aladdin
TomReagan
Worse than I expected. Bad acting, writing, and casting - WTF was Guy Ritchie thinking with Jafar?! The actor is all wrong. Too short and his voice makes him sound like a total wuss. And I WANT to like Will Smith as an actor, but it’s just hard when he goes for delivery rather than emotion. And here, I constantly felt like he’s delivering his lines in front of a green screen (if he’s in fact acting with the other actors, possibly wearing a performance-capture suit?, then his performance is even worse, IMHO).Movie comment on The Two Mrs. Carrolls
TomReagan
Interesting plot up until the big reveal and finale. I was hoping for the usually-strong Stanwyck to stand up to Bogart, which was the main reason I watched it, but she’s just a helpless victim instead. Very disappointing, indeed. Might have been worth it, though, to watch the only film those icons two were in together and also for the surprising homage (easter egg) to Casablanca, from a humorous line that Bogart delivers early on in the picture.Movie comment on The Purple Gang
TomReagan
Cheap production. Terrible acting. Recommended only for die-hard fans looking to check off a box (Prohibition movies, Robert Blake, or just gangster films in general).Movie comment on The Seven Year Itch
TomReagan
Yeah, this one has not aged well. Aside from the creepy/1950s chauvinism, it’s just boring. I’ve never seen a movie in which there’s only one main character who has so much dialogue talking to himself. This was based on a play?! Ugh. Monroe is the only reason to watch this. There was no one like her. Ironically, the iconic scene of her dress flying up on top of the subway vent is not how I imagined - after seeing so many photos and statues of her. Only her legs are shown, not her whole body. Was it even her?Movie comment on A Bad Moms Christmas
TomReagan
Clearly the writers of this one were high while at the keyboard. Not funny. Glad I didn’t pay to see it.Movie comment on Holiday Inn
TomReagan
For some reason, it took me forever to finally watch this movie, which I can’t really explain, since White Christmas is one of my favorite holiday movies. And while watching Holiday Inn, it just made me want to watch White Christmas instead. Fred Astaire’s conniving woman-stealing character, Ted, is hard to watch, especially since his behavior is so easily accepted by everyone else in the movie, especially by Jim Hardy (Bing). And how can I care about Linda after she left Jim so easily for Ted? Jim is the only character I care about. I would have liked it more if Linda wasn’t so shallow. Sorry, but other than the iconic songs and Astaire's dancing (*not* his acting), I just don’t get the appeal for this movie. Also, the blackface number is a sign of the times, so I can excuse it, but I can’t ignore it. 5/10 in my book.Movie comment on Noelle
TomReagan
Anna Kendrick is charming, as always, but that’s about the best I can say about this one. Bill Hader is barely in it and not allowed to shine. I’m a sucker for Christmas movies, but this one just sucks. I’d suggest Fred Claus instead, which has a similar plot and especially finale.Movie comment on Secretariat
TomReagan
Good family movie, but Seabiscuit is MUCH better. This one *feels* like a Disney movie, which is fine for a family movie. Although the true story of the amazing feat that Secretariat accomplished might be worth a watch if you want a second horse-race movie.Showing items 51 – 75 of 106