WitnessToIt Reviews

Woman on the Run (1950)

Stupid movie; completely phony type of ending.

[1/10 · 20 May 2024]

In this movie, a man is on the run (not a woman as the title), instead of letting the police protect him from this killer whose murder he witnessed. The killer took a couple shots at him, but missed by firing at his shadow by error, in the dark.

The wife, played by Ann Sheridan, is very nasty throughout, sarcastic, annoying, not trusting to the policeman who wants to help, but instead, she trusts the killer, who is claiming to be a reporter, without ever ONCE questioning his identity.

She eventually realizes who he is, though it sure takes her a while to put 2 and 2 together, but that only the man who killed the other man would know that shots were taken, and the man (Johnson) who is posing as the reporter told her that shots were taken.

NO, what REALLY bothers me about this movie, is the ending; it's a TOTAL insult to anyone's intelligence; when the killer - who also later threw a woman to her death for drawing a sketch of him - catches up to her husband, Frank - the man he's been after non-stop this whole damn movie - and they're underneath the ride, and all the noise around, and he's got the gun pointed at him, he DOESN'T shoot him!!! - Frank asks him why doesn't he? And he says to Frank (regarding his heart condition) words along the lines of "you've got a bad heart; I don't need too. You can't take tension." Then he proceeds to try and make Frank die from forcing him to be right under the ride, in order to see him die from fright?!?? This makes no sense. (It's unclear also if he's trying to strangle him under there, or just is pushing him). If he spent SO much effort to elude the police and fool Eleanor (Sheridan), he would have just shot Frank dead on the spot, and witness is gone, dead; that's all the guy wanted in this movie.

Instead, the cop winds up shooting him (we don't see this).

This is why I give this low a rating to this (otherwise I'd give it around a 4 or 5 maybe - and it IS filmed very nicely, in San Francisco) - I HATE movies where the killer stops from shooting the person he's after in order to find another way and thus get defeated so there can be a happy ending; Yes I want a happy ending, I don't want the bad guy to win, but the way this is done, is completely impossible to believe, and just destroys the movie right then and there - and this one really didn't have much going for it at all, just some tension and a very stupid woman in it.

By no means is this one of the better film noirs; in fact, seeing it now lets me know why I hadn't in a few years - but I did not remember the ending being so stupid and fake.

The Killer Is Loose (1956)

Sympathy For The Killer.

[9/10 · 19 May 2024]

That's right, this is one movie where the "killer" in this is not one dimensional by any means and you may feel conflicting feelings for him - Poole, played by Wendell Scott.

One irony in this movie's title - the FIRST killer in this is not Leon Poole, but the officer who shot his wife - Sergeant Sam Wagner, played by Joseph Cotten.

The killer I have sympathy for in this is not Cotten's character, but Corey's, Poole.

Poole's wife is shot when these over-zealous cops are going after bank robbers, and whatshisface - I have to look this up, again - Sam Wagner shoots her by accident.

He (Wagner) shows remorse right away; Poole doesn't fly into a rage as would be customary in such an event, in a movie; he instead is in shock, the love of his life gone, the one person who gave him strength, dead - he just says "Don't you see how wrong it was to kill her?" - basically, a stunned, grieving, non-violent statement of truth. So then we see Wagner sad and handing the gun over to another officer before leaving.

At the trial, Poole states he's going to get even with him. It's really hard to say just how fantastic Wendell Corey IS in this movie. The acting by all is very good to great, but Corey is tremendous.

Poole gets a thirty year sentence (interesting - 30 years for robbing a bank, while the police officer who kills the innocent wife, merely gets his hands figuratively slapped). He is given, after over a couple years sentence (I think it was 2 and a half), the chance at an early release, starting with being transferred to working on an Honor farm.

He takes the first chance to escape from there, killing a guard played by Stanley Adams, who was driving him.

That truck would clearly not do so he goes and kills a farmer and steals his truck - and his clothes.

Poole's appearance in this is an important factor in his behavior; the world at large has mocked him; at the beginning of the movie, his former sergeant, Otto Flanders, called him "Foggy" - an incredibly insulting nickname that he used during Poole's military time, which had the whole outfit making fun of him whenever they spoke to him. Thanks a lot, Sergeant.

But before his wife got killed, Poole was able to keep taking the humiliating treatment; afterward, he just snapped. He stopped suppressing his feelings.

And with that - the next stop on our now-killer's itinerary is the home of the sergeant. Poole needs food - badly. Sergeant's wife is there - terrified. He demands food. Sergeant comes home, tells Poole he's outnumbered if he continues, and, holding a milk bottle, goes on about how HE could take him down if he just let down his guard for one second - and they all have guns, the men waiting for him. He kills Sergeant whatshisface. He says afterward, "What else could I do?" The wife has fainted. He leaves with her raincoat.

Now comes where the movie is less than a ten for me; Wagner's wife in this, who Poole is after to kill, because he wants Wagner to feel exactly as he did - a wife for a wife.

This part gets really strange (as if it wasn't enough); why are the men who are watching Poole across the street, where they can barely be sure who they're identifying, instead of being in the house nearby where Wagner's STUPID wife Lila, played by Rhonda Fleming, is coming to?

And more so, WHY in the world is she going there?!?? She has no brains. Shows this whole "you can't tell me what to do" attitude, and basically is walking into getting herself killed.

Meanwhile we've got unshaven, bespectacled Poole following her, right behind her, in a woman's coat.

I want to make it clear that although I had sympathy for Poole in regards to what happened to his wife (who he says at one point was the one person who did not make fun of him, who believed in him, who loved him), I do not support his killing of the guard, or the farmer. (I could care less about his bullying sergeant - Good riddance) But here we have the most stupid person in the movie, Wagner's wife Lila.

I have to agree with one review that says the ending would have been much better if she had been killed and then Poole killed, with him saying "Now you know how it feels" to Wagner, instead of just him being gunned down by the bunch of cops across the street. That would have been fantastic. Lila is a character that very little is shown behind what makes her run; she seems quite vapid, just a bosomy airhead, no brains, easily prone to letting emotion run her; a child, basically. If she had been killed it would have been better.

Overall a really excellent movie despite the ending (which makes this not a perfect ten of a movie). The production on this all-around is great; a shame about the impossible-to-explain parts near and at the end.

This movie has someone who was ridiculed too much, and then had the only thing in his wife taken from him - and when set on revenge, he plays the character in an amazing manner.

This deserves much higher than the rating it has on here, and is definitely worth seeing for any fans of crime dramas, and film noirs.

Overboard (1987)

How horrible can a movie get?!?

[1/10 · 9 May 2024]

Oh wait, it was directed by Garry Marshall, there's a hint right there.

But I've never seen one by him THIS bad.

So basically, Goldie plays this horrible rich witch (okay, word rhymes with it), a one-dimensional snob, absolutely 100 percent spoiled, who treats people like trash.

Now, this carpenter played by Russell is on the end of her abuse, esp. After he makes this thing to store all her shoes in, on her yacht. She refuses to pay him, throws his stuff in the ocean (or lake, whatever) and basically, after she herself later falls in at night, after simply trying to get her wedding ring (while her hubby watches a TV shows about the world's greatest yachts), she falls overboard.

After she arrives in town with amnesia, and verbally abuses the people there at the hospital, the carpenter Russell, after seeing this on TV, pretends SHE is his wife, simply to make her his slave.

He forces her to deal with his awful kids, and she then has to learn how to cook and clean, which in this case involves some of the most disgusting things and ways. (This is done with him figuring how long she will be his slave - his word - until his $600 is paid off)

And she is basically humiliated in every which way, down to how she is forced to dress. Basically, she is abused constantly, and lives in a nightmare.

While early on, her snobby self DID seem she deserved some kind of comeuppance, this is taking it WAY too far.

Since when in the world is kidnapping okay?

And then, all the mental abuse she is put through.

And THEN, under the guise of they were married of course, she falls for him, and they have sex. She gets a case of Stockholm Syndrome, so somehow this is all right?!??

Rape by deception, how romantic, how funny, right?!?

Eventually Mr. Rich Husband finds out and comes and gets her, she is kinder to her servants for being put through hell, and misses the kidnapping carpenter, and so Marshall stages some sickening BS way for them to have a "happy" "romantic" ending.

This is one of the most horrible movies I have EVER seen.

The fact that many people like this shows something seriously wrong with the world, as if if people are emotionally manipulated into being TOLD what is funny, or what is romantic, they then just accept it.

This movie should never have been made and the script should have been burned.

Goldie Hawn has some good movies but by no means is this one of them. Wretched and revolting. I'm sorry I ever saw this. People who like this should be forced to watch the movie Something Wild from 1961 and see if they find that movie "funny" or "romantic" as well...

Tootsie (1982)

How does he cash his CHECKS?

[6/10 · 27 April 2024]

An extremely problematic movie.

I've thought for a long time that Tootsie is an excellent movie; but now after viewing it once again, I realize that except for the parts taking place in the soap opera that Michael is part of in this movie, it's not funny at all. Those are quite funny, extremely funny often, but aside from that, I don't think this movie has much to offer.

The dramatic scenes are, for the most part, just not believable. The suspension of disbelief required to enjoy this WHOLE movie is immense! Here, an actor, who pretends to be a woman in order to get a job because no one will hire him due to his demanding ways as an actor, and when dressed as a woman, looks so bad that when the cameraman is asked "How far can you back up?" he replies "How about Cleveland?", that this 'woman' can make two men fall for her (him?) is just not believable.

Dustin Hoffman does not have the kind of a face that in any way looks like a woman, or can. So it makes things like the aforementioned men falling absurd and too hard to believe, and also the friendship between him as 'Dorothy' and the woman he loves, Julie (Jessica Lange), very strange indeed.

The scenes of the crew filming the soap opera Southwest General are often hilarious, esp. Watching actors and actresses looking at the cue cards when Michael/Dorothy improvises (the opening scenes by the way, seem almost completely improvised by Hoffman, and Bill Murray and Teri Garr). There are a lot of laughs to be had; unfortunately, most of it does not concern the soap opera, but the romantic longings of Michael for Julie, and then there's Sandy (Garr) and Michael with confusion, and some quips along with the talk about acting from Michael and Jeff (Murray).

I realized on this viewing - and I've seen this a bunch of times - just how MUCH the laughs come as major relief, because the rest of the movie just isn't good at all.

And tell me, how in the world does Michael cash his checks made out to Dorothy? I know, I'm supposed to suspend my disbelief, but this just goes too far. This one major oversight is not nearly as bad as watching two grown men - Julie's father, played by Charles Durning, and awful soap actor John Van Horn, played by George Haynes, both fall for 'Dorothy'! It's simply too hard to believe.

The cast is overall great, it's not their fault the story is impossible; Dustin Hoffman is one of my favorite actors of all time (his acting in Kramer vs. Kramer and Midnight Cowboy especially outstanding), and he does a great job - he just can't be convincing as someone who others could believe is a woman.

Teri Garr is great as the frustrated friend (and later lover) Sandy, who has trouble showing anger when acting (boy, Michael brings it out in Julie too); Bill Murray is okay as his friend; Dabney Coleman is EXCELLENT as the sexist director of the soap; Geena Davis is fine as the wide-eyed, beautiful actress on the show in a small part here (played for good laughs); it even has Ellen Foley, a fine actress known for the first season of Night Court (and an AMAZING singer who besides her solo work, is all over Meat Loaf's Bat Out Of Hell), doing the tiniest role in this as as production aide, which is so small it's beneath her talents in real life; and Jessica Lange as the single mother who can't find romance and drinks a bit heavily in order to get through it all....

The movie just doesn't work as a drama or love story; the comedy bits are great but that's just a small part of this.

And the happy ending here is completely impossible to believe and rings false.

Coming Home (1978)

Shockingly bad.

[1/10 · 5 April 2024]

Wow.

I can't believe this movie was nominated for the Academy Award for best picture, or that it won any.

This horrendous movie is possibly the most cliche'-ridden movie I've ever seen. It was an absolute chore to sit through.

I don't know the last time I saw a movie where I was AWARE that I was watching a movie for a good deal of the time; that in itself is a failure.

Then there's the soundtrack; it's so ineffective, it possibly killed off scenes that might have been good - I can't say they would have been good, but some might have been - done in by this constant need to play hits, as if that somehow underscored the emotions of what was happening, but instead it made it a joke at times. It was vastly overdone; to give an example: at one point the dialogue goes "My men were chopping heads off," and at that moment, the Rolling Stones song Sympathy For The Devil starts playing.

I'm not kidding!

This tries so hard to name-check every thing happening, to remind you of the time it took place in, that at another point, a random bit of dialogue, said by a character (I could have sworn it was Nick Nolte), says to Voight, "What about that Kennedy assassination?" This done as Ruby Tuesday plays from the invisible radio...

So much music, there was one scene where From What It's Worth by Buffalo Springfield is playing, and the scene goes from one character to another; you actually see Jon Voight lowering his stereo which was playing it! - and then you see Jane Fonda elsewhere, and the song continues, louder again. Oh brother...

Because of what I call the "invisible radio," there's no way to simply get absorbed in the scenes for the most part, because you were not left alone with the characters themselves to feel whatever you might feel; that damn radio again comes on all the time, telling you how you're supposed to feel by the association it holds with whatever time frame it's from....

Nothing subtle about this movie, and it doesn't let the actors themselves be effective; the music distracts ALL the time, and drowns their actions out most of the time.

While this has an anti-war message in it (good), it is horribly made. It's hard to believe that the man who directed such great movies as In The Heat Of The Night, Being There and Harold and Maude made this. (Harold and Maude used a lot of music - all via Cat Stevens - but did it WELL)

The message about how war does nothing but destroy is made quite clear, and I agree; but it didn't need two hours plus to get that message through. All the actions in this are done to extremes, the ending is terrible as well (though at least it finally ended), this movie is so awful I was totally surprised at how bad it was.

I'd say avoid this movie unless you're a masochist.

Uncle Buck (1989)

Why this is popular is mystifying to me.

[1/10 · 23 March 2024]

Wow.

I wasn't sure or not how much I would like this, but I figured it had to be decent, considering its overall popularity, and it starring John Candy.

For a comedy, this had zero laughs for me.

John Candy plays this brother-in-law of this woman who is a totally one-dimensional character, her hatred and fear of Buck initially not making sense; it's for snobby reasons; with John Hughes, this is 'how will our children ever survive without us around for a very brief time?'

Buck likes to bowl (what kind of snobbery is this here?), gamble on horses, he smokes cigars, and, heaven forbid, his car is old and makes noise. Therefore he's looked down on, by whatsherface, the mother; which means, in Hughes' horribly unfunny fairy tale world, he's somehow 'rebellious,' and we (teenagers? Seems aimed at an even younger crowd here) will root for him.

Add to this his girlfriend, an incredibly nasty woman who won't let him even explain anything, and jumps to conclusions about him, basically acts in a manner that is bereft of actual human emotions for the most part, it's so exaggerated.

Of course, she is upset because she wants to marry him. (?!???) (She sure doesn't act like a woman in love...)

So he comes to help babysit the three children of the annoying man and woman he's related to: the cute little ones, featuring Gaby Hoffmann, and Macaulay Culkin; and the older one, a 15 year old teenage girl named Tia who is the biggest, worst brat in the world, absolutely impossible to sympathize with for her wanting freedom, to be with her boyfriend (named Bug? Seriously?) God this was so horrible.

Anyway they live in what is like a mansion basically, and the girl thinks they've got things bad when their mom gets them Chinese takeout for dinner; oh, the horror. How rough they have it.

But the thing really horrible about this, is not just the jokes (they ARE horrible); it's that Buck thinks it's okay - or, rather, the people making this, like John Hughes, thought it okay to have jokes about murdering someone; first, Buck threatens Bug with an axe, then with a drill; and he winds up keeping the guy tied up in the trunk of the car with gag on his mouth, because he caught the guy with another girl (as opposed to his wanting to have sex with the too-young Tia, which was what Buck was trying to stop all throughout) (it is REALLY supposed to be funny when the little girl - Maizy (Hoffman) says, about Tia and Bug kissing, something like "I bet they're using their tongues"? (I forget the exact line, but I'm not watching any of this again)

Buck threatening murder, and then actually keeping the guy tied up and bound in the car really exceeds anything that to me should be in any movie that's supposed to be a family comedy. It's more like something about some psycho killer, some murderer - why am I thinking of Goodfellas now? Ah yes, that's a very gentle, family movie....

An absolutely horrible movie, written by someone with a warped idea of 'humor', sold to a crowd primarily rich and white.

Nothing funny in here.

Even the whole thing of wanting Buck's girlfriend to know he's not fooling around with Marcie (Laurie Metcalfe) and be kind and understanding to him really goes out the window as he plays this psycho.

Oh yeah, there's a scene where a woman with a horrible wart on her face is told by him to "take this quarter, go downtown, and have a rat chew that thing off your face." Seriously, is that supposed to be funny?

No, I'm not upset because it's not "correct." What I don't like is the hatred here, the one-dimensional characters, the completely unfunny "jokes," and the way this kind of behavior is not only supposed to be 'funny' (because we're told it is?) but also supposed to be acceptable AND cheered on.

A ridiculous, absolutely HORRIBLE movie. Nothing funny in this one.

An absolute waste of the talents of John Candy, and an insult to moviegoers everywhere; it's amazing that anybody liked or likes this swill.

Annie Get Your Gun (1950)

So great I had to see it twice my first time!

[10/10 · 10 March 2024]

I just discovered this movie this past day, and I can't believe, with my love, for old, classic musicals, that I didn't see this sooner!

This is absolutely magnificent, completely wonderful!

Betty Hutton plays Annie Oakley so great, I am surprised some people complain because it's not Judy Garland; I've thought for some time Judy Garland was the greatest singer and entertainer of all time, but that doesn't mean she could have done this better than Betty!

It just doesn't.

Betty Hutton, with her incredible energy and animated comic talents and ability to play someone completely broad or exaggerated while at the same time realistic by being so incredibly vulnerable and sensitive, was MADE for this role!

So much is invested in this by her; the energy; the unbelievable dancing at times (such precision, the moves done in places here, is unreal); the ability to be so moving when doing the dramatic parts - I mean anyone who does not empathize for her character in this movie has no heart; this movie is just incredibly moving.

It has a tremendous heart.

I love her beauty too. Her singing is fantastic.

Howard Keel...some say they think his acting in this is BAD - ?!??

Oh NO - the way he and Betty did not get along, both he and Betty Hutton were true professionals; though I can't help but think how this may have added to the song Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better! (which has one of the funniest scenes in the movie courtesy of Hutton!) (I don't want to give it away) She's constantly hilarious in this movie.

(When she meets Frank Butler is one of the funniest moments; it's overdone, but who CARES! It's what makes it so great - and I don't think anyone else could have done it nearly as good)

I also think the outfits they have Keel wear as Frank Butler, with his initials ALL over the place, are HILARIOUS! Ha ha ha ha!

Keel clearly did not mind playing someone who was so egotistical, probably had a good laugh doing so (and the costumes in this are often great - save for the "Indians," ha ha).

Looking over the songs - I think it's hard to believe anyone doesn't know of Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better, I've known the chorus of that since a kid; There's No Business Like Show Business is one of the greatest songs from any musical; it's part of what makes this the most uplifting movie this side of Singin' In The Rain. (And Calamity Jane too! I love that one.)

You Can't Get A Man With A Gun, Doin' What Comes Naturally, both great; I'm An Indian Too not so great, but the dancing she does at the end, the way she lifts herself up, absolutely amazing to see.

I can't put into words how incredible she is.

Her heart was worn on her sleeve in this, as learning more about how it was behind the scenes only makes her performance that much more remarkable.

If you love old musicals, you HAVE to see this.

I tried three different movies after the first viewing I had of this tonight, a bit of each, and gave up - none could do for me what this did.

One of the very best feel-good, upbeat, heartwarming, spirited musicals I've ever seen. An-all time great - and an instant favorite for me.

And I now love Betty Hutton.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)

TERRIBLE ending.

[2/10 · 25 November 2023]

I used to love this movie; I first saw it maybe 15 to 20 years ago.

It shows what great can do, of course.

But now once it gets to just over 2 hours and 2 minutes, there's a serious problem with it:

The laugh.

I hated the laugh for the first time several years ago. I felt the laugh by Howard (Huston) is so incredibly fake and overdone; I still thank that, but I also think that no one would really actually laugh at what happened; if they did, they might shake their head and then laugh a small one for a moment at how TRAGIC things turned out; they certainly wouldn't be laughing their heads off at losing a fortune like he does. While I get this is about how terrible greed is - something I LIKE pointed out in movies - this ending is just terrible.

The whole issue of greed affecting one's mind is pointed out well by Dobbs' behavior let alone his fate. Most people also do not have an entire village of people treating them as a savior or God for saving a child, by the way, and having him set for life; he would just have lost his money, and be destitute.

Another problem with the ending: the suggestion that the widow of Cody would want to be visited in person Curtin by with the money? Stupid idea, and one that seems to suggest "go and comfort the widow" (read: take advantage of)

The movie was damn good up until the last 4 minutes, then it all goes to hell. A shame.

I suppose people who are well-off money-wise and have the rest of their lives set can enjoy the ending and not be angry, not feel like wanting to punch that guy right in the face when he starts his stupid "laugh." It ruined everything about this movie.

Misery (1990)

Like a parody of a genuine thriller.

[1/10 · 15 October 2023]

This horrendous movie, starring James Caan as the oh-so-brilliant writer whose name is not Stephen King in this, and Kathy Bates as the crazed fan who worships him, is so utterly ludicrous it's ridiculous it has a high rating let alone did not completely bomb at the box office.

Everything in this cartoon is done over-the-top; there is no tension - Rob Reiner is a hack, his direction is terrible, I can only imagine what a good or great director could have maybe brought to the story; this does not have the suspense or tension in an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, let alone one of his movies. Just watch the movie Psycho about how a thriller should be done, and then watch this, and see if there doesn't seem to be something wrong with this movie.

After keeping him captive, and it being done in such a manner that one cannot even take it too seriously, the sheriff comes and almost saves him, but alas, this psycho-nurse woman, who was released previously from prison on WHAT grounds? - shoots him, the sheriff that is, and stands there in such a position, this military type pose, that it's an absolute joke to see.

And then the sheriff is forgotten about! Plus, she can't be killed - she keeps being alive after events, things Caan's character did to her, would normally have killed her with, yet it's a total cartoon, and it takes a good while to kill her; it is never told how he ever was found and freed, instead of dying there.

This movie is not frightening, it is not scary, it has no suspense, it has a way about it that makes it hard to take very seriously.

I had seen it once before many years ago and did not remember it being so awful.

Absolutely HORRIBLE movie. Don't believe the hype.

A waste of time, pure garbage.

Bus Riley's Back in Town (1965)

Movie Without A Point.

[3/10 · 24 August 2023]

Like many who wanted to watch this movie, I was interested in it (reminded about it) because Ann-Margret was in it.

I also am a fan of Kim Darby.

This movie has, as one has noted, an actor who it seems was hired because he could impersonate or channel James Dean; it's really quite spot-on, though more from the actor's left profile than his right.

Never mind how great an actress Kim Darby was, or what a sex bomb Ann-Margret was - there's really nothing to see here.

Just a very boring, lifeless soap of a movie, about a guy with the name "Bus" - this is never addressed, but why bother - who basically has all women nuts for him...including his ex-girlfriend, now married...this is such an incredibly boring movie...it's an absolute waste of time...no wonder the writer of the original story has his name changed for the movie because he was so upset how it came out....this is boring as hell.... I am sorry I wasted my time on it.... I could not recommend this to anybody. It's pointless. I cannot see how anybody could feel enriched by watching this; it simply kills time. Forget about it; I'm going to try to, now.

I have to say I laughed at times just from being startled by simply seeing James Dean up there! He'll look like James Dean for a moment, then turn his head, and he's somebody else.

That's sadly the only interesting thing in this.

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

There's too many movies in this movie.

[1/10 · 22 August 2023]

I don't know what I can add to what the review called "The Sara Lee Of Films" said.

This movie was an absolute waste of my time, and of the talents of the actors and actresses in this who have talent (meaning, not so much for Tom Hanks, who should have quit after making Big. Or maybe after The Green Mile)

This incredibly frustrating movie start out with potential, except after a while, his ability to seemingly do ANYTHING he wants - in the shortest time period - and escape in any manner he chooses - all without explanation - becomes very tiring, and also, completely unbelievable. (Oh, and the end, it telling us the fact that the guy this is based on, in some form, is a multi-millionaire and has been happily married for 26 years, is the biggest insult of all)

All the things he does - they're all little stories; the big story here is impossible, if containing all these things - it's like Good Will Hunting meets Houdini and God knows what else........He could never do all these escapes....or be all these people, do all the jobs he magically gets....

I wanted to see the romance with Brenda (Amy Adams) go somewhere; her performance, along with Christopher Walken's, comes across completely sincere; the story of her getting pregnant by some friend of her father's - implied rape, not stated - is quite believable here, and the way she conveys it, and her love for Frank, it would have made a much better movie - the love story of a young woman falling for a young man who helps her escape from her family would have had the potential for a great movie, if in the right hands...

This movie was DEFINITELY not in the right hands, be it Spielberg, one of the most overrated directors of all time, or in the hands of the writers......

Hanks just plays the same character he always does, and adds his own choice of an "accent" for it....

This movie is one of the most frustrating watches I've ever had; it truly seemed like it would be a great movie early on...

Christopher Walken's portrait as a man losing his wife and remaining utterly torn apart by it is fantastic.

There are simply too many stories, or vignettes, as that review phrased it; they also don't have endings, the movie continues to another story and the previous one is left behind as are the characters; this doesn't WORK in a movie... I actually wondered near the end "what happened to the girl?" - what happened to Brenda? It doesn't matter apparently.

And the stories continue and go on and on forever (with the movie seeming to go on forever), never mind how much things change....with him working for the FBI; I almost thought he would actually be fleeing at the end...as if it would matter, his breaking free...as if there was some way to justify or make real the incredible, ridiculous amount of stories told which are preposterous for the most part, and all the time wasted.

Don't watch this unless you like to be CHEATED.

*Edit: after seeing this last night I have found out that the guy this is based on, Frank Abagnale Jr., was a complete lair (huge surprise for someone who forged checks, huh!), and his stories are not to be believed for the most part. Spielberg then "embellished" it by adding more lies to it! This should NOT be presented in any way as some sort of real story. The relationship he has in the movie, one of the most moving parts of it, is completely fictional; his never-getting-caught until the end is ALSO a lie. He never worked for the FBI. You can't believe most anything he said, and you can't believe or trust Spielberg either, this shows.

This movie should have been presented as fiction. An absurd, impossible, and, as it goes on, ultimately boring movie filled with deceit, to solely rip off people, through LIES. Forget it.

Back to the Beach (1987)

Painful; a complete disaster.

[1/10 · 6 August 2023]

I hadn't seen this since it came out and now I see why I hadn't bothered. This movie should not be mentioned in the same paragraph as the '60s beach movies unless to say it can't compare to them, and is only a parody of them.

The thing is, that could have been okay. I knew it was a parody going into it; I just didn't remember how HORRIBLE the "humor" in this was...

You've got Frankie as a car salesman (who wears his dress pants on the beach, by the way) and Annette as his wife (here called Annette, not Dee Dee), and the kid who wanted 2 dollars from John Cusack in Better Off Dead as their "punk-ish" son.

Everything is written so ridiculously exaggerated, it's all done in a really BAD way. The costumes are an utter joke - the gang that Bobby, the son, joins with, are some horrendous 1980s Hollywood idea of what punk is supposed to be; the surfers are so stupid in this that besides making "Bonehead" from the originals seem smarter, it at LEAST makes him not seem obnoxious, not cringe-inducing; THAT'S the term! That's the term for this whole stupid, stinking movie. It's downright painful. I actually was in some tears when there was a ska number by the band Fishbone, it was so bad. And then I can't (for the moment) forget about this one character in it, Troy, who is so horrendous, his jokes terrible, his smugness overdone....oh I can't go on, I don't want to think about this movie anymore.

I'll just say Pee-Wee Herman may be the highlight of this, with a bad version of Surfin' Bird (it ain't The Trashmen, that's for sure), and of complete with horrible 1980s electronic drums. In fact, all the music in this is ruined by the godawful '80s sounds of those drums and of course synthesizers.

ALL the jokes fall FLAT. None of the guest stars on this can rescue this steaming pile masquerading as entertainment - this includes Bob Denver, Jerry Mathers, Tony Dow, Barbara Billingsley, Alan Hale Jr., the list goes on; you can spot - well I did - Rodney Bigenheimer in this disaster, this mess.

Not even Dick Dale or Stevie Ray Vaughan can (God, I hate the costumes of the backing singers, thinking of that now - all the musicians, this horrendous, exaggerated '80s semi-new wave type of look - about as real as if everybody dressed like they were auditioning to play with Grace Jones or something.....

Oh and Lori Laughlin, their daughter in this (Frankie and Annette's), was in the show Full House - one of the most vile, nauseating "sitcoms" ever in the history of television.

There are simply too many things wrong with this movie; there is absolutely no redeeming value in this. Sorry, Pee-Wee.

Flush this movie down the toilet. All prints of this should have been destroyed long ago.

American Pie (1999)

Ebert was wrong; there IS cruelty in this movie.

[1/10 · 21 June 2023]

This horrible so-called comedy about a bunch of teens making a pact to lose their virginity before college was much worse than I remembered. (I had seen it once many years ago)

First off, the so-called humor was absolutely unfunny, including such 'gags' as the following - a guy using a pie while pretending to have sexual relations with a woman, hence the stupid title - everyone knows that scene; a guy drinking a cup of beer not knowing there's semen in it (I guess because he's a loudmouth and nasty this is supposed to be funny?!?); same said guy with beer then vomiting on the dress of the girl he was with instead of having sex with her; a guy unknowingly being slipped laxative and then rushing to the girls' bathroom to have his bowel movement, which despite his misery he places pieces of toilet tissue down on the seat before to avoid germs (even though when walking down the hallways he seemed close to going in his pants), and then flatulence sounds and such while the girls in there at the mirror (the only place females ever go to in bathrooms in movies) go 'eww'; and a girl at a microphone at the prom saying how some guy she said had sex with her didn't, and among other insults to him, how he pees himself when he's nervous or embarrassed (I forget the exact lines) - and then the guy wets himself.

WOW.

That's not cruelty? Making incontinence something to laugh at, to be made fun of?

Or the other guy suddenly being hit with what was surely violent diarrhea from a so-called friend giving him laxative?

Ebert wrote in his review which can be read on here, 'Raunchy is okay. Cruelty is not.' He clearly could not see the two overlapping here......

The rest of the movie, we have various characters, like the idiot who, deciding to use the pie to try and pretend what sex must feel like, does it in the kitchen, is caught on the counter by his DAD, and this is supposed to be funny.

The father, played by Eugene Levy of SCTV fame, gives the boy some porn mags in his room and talks to him in a manner....that I can only imagine some kids possibly - possibly- finding funny as their minds and tastes haven't developed yet; it's DIRE.

Then there's the girl who comes over to see him, played by the gorgeous Shannon Elizabeth (the female cast are very attractive young women here, no doubt) - she is a foreign student (this reminded me a tiny bit of the Beverly Hillbillies episode 'The Swiss Maid' with Julie Newmar, but that was actually humorous) - she comes over, and he has this hookup so that it's being filmed, and the live video footage is shown to everybody he knows, somehow, via online. Of course, after he takes off to see her naked at another house (?!?), she then proceeds to use the magazines his father brought for her own sexual needs; yes, this is so realistic.... And to add to how horrible this scene is, she has him strip when he gets back - absolutely cringe-inducing.

And the 'band geek,' played by Alyson Hannigan; her repeating herself about band camp is the supposed joke here, along with her suddenly speaking sexually and wanting sex; Hannigan was likeable but her character and jokes are not funny in the least.

Then there's the actor Chris Klein, who was in the great movie Election just before this; he is the sole male character who shows some sensitivity in regards to the girl he falls for, played by Mena Suvari, who was in American Beauty around this time; both do their parts really well, and basically if a movie could show more of this thoughtful rejection of the crude 'need' to lose their virginity before a certain age and actually have a romantic movie, that would have been one worth watching. Alas, the subplot that is it, surrounded by crass, disgusting and cruel humor, cannot save or make this movie.

Likewise, the talents of Alyson Hannigan and Natasha Lyonne (who has just been in the movie Slums Of Beverly Hills) are just wasted in this sick, unbelievably overrated, horrible excuse for a comedy.

Avoid at all costs.

Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice (2019)

Endless fawning.

[2/10 · 16 May 2023]

I wanted to know more about Linda Ronstadt as I've been enjoying a good deal of her music up through 1980 lately.

This documentary is highly acclaimed and was very popular so why not give it a shot? I figured.

And her beauty was quite incredible (from the '70s), as shown early on in this.

But basically, besides not being a real full view of her as a person, not telling a lot about her, what it DOES tell, is constant fawning by fellow musicians who worked with her, by David Geffen who loves the money, and so forth, who swear that EVERYTHING she ever did was 'brave' - if she puts out a lousy album - "it was BRAVE of her!" She puts out a popular album - "that was so BRAVE of her!" Endless hyping for everything Linda did, including her God-awful excursion into opera.

It just gets really tiring hearing every single person do nothing but rave about her endlessly.

The first hour of this had some good music, albeit clips - the last half hour, not for me; maybe for a hardcore fan, sure.

One thing I took note of was when she was talking about the McGarrigle Sisters, and when she says 'I had to sing that song,' right at the moment the sister was going to start singing, this film couldn't even let whichever singer it was of the two sisters do even a line from it - it cuts IMMEDIATELY to Linda - the world's biggest hero - singing it, forcefully.

Apparently this movie looks over people who played an important part of her career and success, like Andrew Gold, but you'd never know it if you didn't learn about it elsewhere, because it sure isn't in this!

This movie started out promising, the praise for her got more and more annoying as it went on, and by the end it does nothing but leave a bad feeling for me about wanting to even listen to her - and the irony is that her voice in its day is still just as great - I just don't need to hear this endless fawning.

This became a chore to watch as it went on, esp. The last half hour. Greatly disappointing.

Cape Fear (1991)

Absolutely horrible.

[1/10 · 13 May 2023]

I just now saw this again for the first time in a few years, and there's absolutely nothing making this worthwhile for a viewing.

Here Scorsese tried to somehow outdo the original and failed most abominably.

De Niro's Max Cady is so utterly and unbelievably over the top it's ridiculous. This movie is almost good at times for a laugh, except the unintentional humor is more of something to make you shake your head in disbelief over than actually laugh from.

This movie is an utter chose to stick with this all the way, at least it was for me.

I think the performance by Juliette Lewis was quite good, given the material she had to work with, but it didn't make this worth watching. It's one of those movies SO bad, you want to see something good RIGHT AWAY to get this awful garbage out of your system.

I suppose De Niro was good at playing this monster-from-hell type, who you just can't wait to see killed. That doesn't mean it was fun to watch.

I'm sorry to see Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck in this as well.

The original is a must-see film.

This is garbage.

Vacation (1983)

Pretty bad comedy.

[3/10 · 10 May 2023]

This movie's popularity is something I don't understand.

There are a few laughs, a few "dumb laughs," but overall this movie is so STUPID, it's hard to really enjoy it much.

I guess most people like things overly silly.

The later scene with Aunt Edna being put on the roof of the car when found dead in the backseat was just too horrible and cringe-inducing - how on earth is that amusing?

SO many stupid scenes.

Everything is vastly overdone in this; Imogene Coca is just wasted in this, she was the most talented and funny cast member in real life and Chevy Chase can't hold a candle to her.

Overall this is really bad and I don't understand why this movie is considered a comedy classic, that's just crazy.

There ARE worse movies to pass the time though this was pretty painful in many moments - like when they force themselves, or Chevy does, into "Wally World," and the scenes with John Candy, and the weird voice they chose for him, are terribly unfunny. Am I supposed to laugh when he's shot with a BB gun? This movie is quite stupid.

Just changed the rating from a 4 to a 3 - it gets even worse as it goes along.

The scene where Chase asked for directions was amusing, for a whole couple seconds....

Requiem for a Heavyweight (1962)

Can't compare to the 1956 Playhouse 90 version.

[5/10 · 25 March 2023]

A very depressing movie.

This has none of the heart of the original, incredibly moving teleplay from October 11, 1956 on Playhouse 90. This is just one incredibly downbeat movie.

The acting is fine, especially Julie Harris as the social worker Grace Miller. And Anthony Quinn is fine as Mountain Rivera. Jackie Gleason and Mickey Rooney are good in their roles.

But it can't compare to both the original cast of Jack Palance, Kim Hunter, Keenan Wynn and Ed Wynn - and the way the script originally went.

There are changes in this, big changes, mostly awful ones, that instead of making you cry because you're so moved, instead leave one with a feeling of nothing but depression, of remorse.

This is a movie about hopelessness.

The ending is dismal.

I gave this a second chance and while the acting was fine, I'm sorry I watched it. The original will always be the only one for me from now on.

The Whale (2022)

Far worse than I could possibly have imagined.

[1/10 · 18 March 2023]

So I finally saw this movie, and I thought I would be moved at the plight of this incredibly obese man and his sadness and such.

And I did at moments early on - this after getting over the initial surprise of him masturbating to gay porn at the beginning, seemingly by his reaching down to his SIDE. His side......... Then I had to get used to the fact that his fat costume (or CGI, whatever), did not make his body look real. His stomach, and where his belly button would be, was much lower than seemed real, when he got up to walk with his walker.

So he teaches this class to some students from home and is afraid to be seen; well that is something one can feel empathy for, it's very sad to be too ashamed to show yourself to them (and at the end, near the end, when he does, of course there is at least one if not two people, students, amused by it - which is disgusting. But so is this movie.)

His daughter, who has been noted to be a brat, is one, and he keeps saying 'you're amazing' over and over - how is she amazing? She's annoying as hell. She's horrible.

And the guy who is supposed to be from some religious thing called New Life, an organization that believes in the End Times, comes around, but is revealed to not be?

And then there's Liz, who is Charlie's (Fraser's) friend and was his late boyfriend's sister, and she comes around initially to try and get him to go to a hospital, but Charlie refuses; so she keeps coming around until he dies.

Basically I thought this movie would have me completely in tears, or at least move me to that at times. Instead, with Charlie sitting around and eating things like two slices of pizza at once (people with eating problems or eating disorders, call it what you will, they do not eat like this. And he also puts mayonnaise on his pizza?!???). We are told this is a beautiful movie and we should be so moved, yet while this is an extremely sad situation and story, it leaves me feeling both disgusted - sadly partly by Charlie himself, and also by the whole yelling - from the daughter, the ex-wife, Liz, etc - Charlie himself.....this movie is vile.

And he is most sad because his gay lover committed suicide of course.

And at the very end, he walks over, without the help of his walker - this time not crushing an end table - he stands up and she reads her essay about Moby Dick (which we have heard a few times in this movie), and suddenly his feet rise up and he's happy and bathed in white light, and so he's risen and is possibly in Heaven? Though he said he doesn't believe in an afterlife?

This whole movie was vile, just absolutely disgusting, with no redeeming value. If you want to see a movie about someone incredibly obese but with a real character, and real pain, and a really great movie (with no prosthetics or CGI), see What's Eating Gilbert Grape.

Also this movie seemed to be much, much longer than it was - watching this movie, it veers between being sad, boring, disgusting and torturous. Mainly torturous. I would recommend this to no one.

This deserved no Oscars, by any means - talk about how movies have fallen over the years - and Aronofsky didn't and doesn't deserve to earn a penny from this absolutely horrendous movie.

Of Mice and Men (1992)

Excellent movie, though I greatly prefer the original.

[8/10 · 16 March 2023]

Well I finally watched this, after having seen the 1939 original movie version of this maybe 15 or even 20 times over the years.

I tried this years ago and I'm not sure why I stopped; this is a really great version of the movie.

It's played much differently than the original of course - it has Malkovich delivering his lines very softly much of the time, which of course shows more that Lennie is really a kind person inside - "like a little baby" as Curley's wife (here given no name) says.

Also the language here did not have to conform to the censorship standards of 1939.

The parts I liked more in the original were:

The scene with Lennie and Crooks (who here stands much more crooked) - in the original, the sense of extreme loneliness is much greater, I felt it much more than here. And it's pretty powerful here. That speaks volumes the way it feels in the original to me.

Also in that, Curley's wife, Mae, we see further how lonely she really is, the way she is completely cast out from contact by Curley.

There's a billboard shot in a scene at the beginning of the original that has to be seen.

And the ending in the original comes off feeling like the killing of Lennie by his friend George was a true act of kindness, to spare him from the fate he would have otherwise; the ending of the original is quite beautiful; here it's shocking (even though I of course knew it was coming), and quite painful to see. The ending of this version is painful.

Both are great versions and this makes me want to go and read the book again (it's been so long, many years), but while I found this excellent, well like my title says, I greatly prefer the original, which is simply one of my all-time favorite movies.

I'd recommend both to basically everyone. And if someone has only seen this, they need to check out the original, to give it a chance. This is a great movie, by all means, regardless. I wish I hadn't waited so long.

Great cast too. Malkovich is superb - at first I had trouble adjusting to his facial expressions and how he spoke, as it came off fake, due to my having seen him recently in Places In The Heart; Sherilyn Fenn is great as Curley's wife (here, clearly interested in George); Burgess Meredith as Candy is great - and here the dog is old! Not just stated as old. And also watch for Alexis Arquette in this, when he was still a man, in a small part.

There are lots of differences - here, Lennie wasn't the only one amused before Curley decided to pick a fight with him....

Excellent movie. See both versions by all means.

Sorry, Wrong Number (1948)

Impossible to follow and makes little to no sense.

[1/10 · 14 March 2023]

There's a review of this titled Meaninglessness and I feel that's a pretty accurate summary of this movie.

This jumps from one thing to another, various people introduced and then discarded, from one story to another as if this was some kind of dream that makes none or little sense - it does in pieces or parts but not as a whole. This reminded me at one point of something akin to some David Lynch movie I'd seen.

This is filmed well and the acting by Stanwyck is fine - she may seem to some to be over the top at times, but she's not to me, that's really only due to the source material of how this movie was written, the screenplay. (Note: I have not heard the original radio broadcast). Without giving anything away, I will say there is a great encounter with her telling off her father, played by Ed Begley.

But that's just it - there can be good moments, but overall nothing seems to link them together in a linear fashion, and the story is an absolute jumbled mess! Nothing is clear - except the end, the last few minutes.

Fine cinematography; Stanwyck looks great and acts pretty fine in my opinion; Lancaster looks sharp and, there's nothing wrong with his acting either. It's just that this movie stinks.

Music for Millions (1944)

No wonder I didn't like it the first time.

[4/10 · 14 March 2023]

And I'm a Margaret O'Brien fan!

Released in between the very good to great Meet Me In St. Louis with Judy Garland and Our Vines Have Tender Grapes, beautiful movie. This is not up to the standards of either. There's a reason this one is not rated as high as either of those.

This is just not a good movie.

This is a wartime propaganda movie, with June Allyson as her older sister (yes, kind of odd) and with this whole female symphony led by some pompous guy, playing music I didn't like, throughout it (an actual musical would have been much better - maybe). And Jimmy Durante as some kind of comic relief, except he ain't funny in this.

Oh and so O'Brien - as Mike - ?!?? - her sister is Barbara, played by June Allyson , and her husband is away, he's at war and...basically she's worried because she hasn't heard from him for a long time, and a letter comes in where the girls - including Marsha Hunt (Raw Deal) and Marie Wilson (My Friend Irma) all live - a boarding house, or whatever you call it - anyway Barbara is worried cause her husband hasn't written, so Marie Wilson - as Marie - gets her uncle to write a letter, forge one in the husband's style, saying he was away, because one letter already came from the army saying he was dead, and Marsha is hiding it from her - so they get this guy to write a letter, he'll do it for booze money. Anyway he writes this thing and they're so happy to be concealing the truth from June (what the hell did they think would make this okay when she later never had him coming home?!?? - oh yeah, she's pregnant by the way.) Anyway so near the very end we find out that he never DID write this stupid letter about being on an island for four months and eating coconuts etc, and that her husband really DID write the letter! So, their symphony or whatever is playing the song "Hallejuah! Halleujah!" as they 1) find out about it, and 2) her baby is born. Sheesh! Good God.....

I'm all for happy endings but this was way too much. Completely cringe-inducing, over the top.

The early scenes of Mike being lost, and her going onstage when the symphony is playing is nice, it's cute and the latter quite funny, and she was a great child actress, but in no way is this one of her better films. I'd recommend Our Vines Have Tender Grapes above all the others I've seen of her, if not that, then maybe Lost Angel or something.

This is just a pretty bad movie. Unless you want to see everything she's in, or everything Durante is in, I'd say pass by all means.

Eight Is Enough: Best of Friends (1979) Season 3, Episode 21

Watched it for Rosanna.

[5/10 · 25 February 2023]

So in this episode, the main plot as noted is a friend of Tommy's finds out she's pregnant; Rosanna Arquette, as Lori, is excellent in her role. There's absolutely no chemistry between them though; it seems simply more like friends, which is all they are; in fact, his wanting to marry her comes across kind of strange, as he never acts like he's in love with her - and in fact, he never says this, and also, they never even kiss! Not once. And it takes until 46 minutes into this show for them to say the required words of I love you.

She doesn't know what to do, her ex-boyfriend doesn't care - though he sends her money to get an abortion, which is one word never used in this - they use the word alternative, an alternative... Her acting is great though again there's no chemistry, it's like battle of the feathered hairdos or something watching them.

Subplot includes David and Janet finding they have roaches, and having to stay the night at the Bradfords while their place is fumigated, and Nicholas and his friend Irving trying to open up a lemonade stand, and dealing with these two little girls, one of whom goes to school with Nicholas, the other one her sister. They have their own lemonade stand.

And Dianne Kay - Nancy - goes away on a trip at the beginning of the show, so she's basically absent in this one.

This is really only worth seeing - once - if you're a huge Rosanna Arquette fan - she's young and pretty here, 19 going on 20 - or if you're a huge Eight Is Enough fan - I'm not the latter.

Not a very impressive episode, not horrible either but it's presented in such a manner as to not be offensive that it's not really an adult show, despite the issue here. And again, lack of chemistry is a real problem in this episode.

Rosanna's acting brings this up a tiny notch for me. I can't imagine seeing this again though.

Kalifornia (1993)

The worst movie I've ever seen.

[1/10 · 14 February 2023]

This was the absolute worst, most worthless movie I've ever seen, and if I said that about anything before, I was wrong; it doesn't get any lower than this trash.

Nothing redeeming whatsoever. Not entertainment in any sense. What you've got here is this totally violent story of a hick with an overdone Southern accent, by Pitt, who kills whoever he feels.

There's no real moral in this movie at all.

There could have been; it also has Duchovny as the writer of books about serial killers, but he makes really no statement at all.

His girlfriend Carrie, played by Michelle Forbes, is against "Early" (Pitt) also, but so what? And then there's Juliette Lewis as Early's girlfriend, Adele, who basically acts like a little girl, but she's still better than (ahem) Early.

This was the sickest, most reprehensible movie.

Pitt and company should have gotten no money for making this piece of garbage. Disgusting. Deplorable.

Avoid.

North by Northwest (1959)

I can't believe I used to love this movie.

[5/10 · 11 February 2023]

Well, almost can't believe I used to love it.

It could be considered entertainment. It's beautifully filmed, Eva Marie Saint is great looking...the camera angles.... I supposed there *is* suspense the first time around, for certain... But the whole thing is nonsense.

This whole "wrong identity" thing (done a million times better in The Wrong Man by Hitchcock, a far superior movie), here with his old standby of political intrigue and spys and all that sort of nonsense is here; add in a couple of attractive leading stars, a contrived romance, and you've got.... money in the bank...

This truly is very well-shot. The Mount Rushmore sequence, the angles from on top of a building, etc....

But it's not a great movie in my opinion, not a very good one.

For Hitchcock, see Rear Window, see Psycho. Strangers On A Train. Certainly don't start with this.

Eva Marie Saint was so wonderful in On The Waterfront - now *that's* a great movie!!!

This may be considered a classic but I see through it now and I'm no longer impressed by this movie. I find it utterly ridiculous. I still feel it deserves about five stars from me though - there are worse movies; this just is no good basically. This is not a good example of how Hitchcock could be and was called "the master of suspense"; this is a cartoon compared to many of his other films.

Middle of the Night (1959)

Incredibly depressing, misery-laden movie.

[4/10 · 1 February 2023]

What a letdown. Reading the words of all the people who love this movie, I thought I had found a hidden gem.

Far from it.

In this portrayal of a middle-aged man of 56, played by Fredrich March, falling in love with a young woman of 24 (Kim Novak), there is nothing but heartache and pain and unfulfilled dreams and the aching of passing years. This is the study of empty lives - you hear people talking how they wish they were dead at times.

This is about being unable to find the love you need.

This is about the most depressing movie I've ever seen.

There is fine acting by Fredrich March, one of Hollywood's all-time best actors; Kim Novak is decent in this, albeit seemingly too nervous at times (not her best performance). Martin Balsam, in one scene, gives a great performance in this that is up there with March's acting.

I just don't recommend this movie to anybody depressed; you won't find some grand love story you can escape in; you'll find a heavyset drama, filled with a couple of families giving advice, advice, advice, with so much yelling and sadness.

Spoiler? - there is even a suicide attempt in this movie (I won't say who, but not one of the main characters - but it's understandably depressing enough).

And this is a movie where one bit of dialogue stays in my head now after seeing it: where one man says that they hadn't been living for years.

Avoid unless you have no problems at all in life. Actually, just avoid this. What a misery-laden movie.

I give it 4 stars for the acting being mostly fine; it doesn't make it a good movie however.