IN: Review: While listening to an audio book, Cambpell Scott is the reader. I was so excited to hear his voice and that brought back my disappointment that "Six Degrees" was canceled. They never seem to keep the good shows on air long enough to capture an audience that can connect with the shows story. What a shame, and shame on th network for not giving this show a full seasons chance. This was an excellent show to watch with a great cast. The network gave "Men in Trees" a second chance witch is also a great show , but they took "Invasion" off and that also was something totally different to watch, not the same old-same old themes. Why can't the networks get it right.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: From actor and independent writer/director John Cassavetes, A Woman Under the Influence gives the viewer a look at a working class family with a problem of mental instability. The husband, Nick (played by Peter Falk) is a blue collar worker who has trouble showing his wife, Mabel (played by Gena Rowlands) the amount of attention that she deserves. From the onset of the film, it is obvious that Mabel is very quirky and strange, but only a few minutes later it is clear that she is much more than that. Crazy. Bonkers. Out of her damn mind. Nick tries his hardest to hide this from his co-workers, and after she has a particularly strange incident at dinner, he asks her if she'll be okay, as if he's trying to deny Mabel's illness. Her problem only spirals from there.

I did find some particular problems with this film. I guess these problems were mostly present in the story, and the way some of the character acted toward the end. Mabel has been committed, because, frankly, she's nuts. Then, six months later, she's ready to come out of the hospital, and her husband throws a party to welcome her back. He never acts stupid in the beginning of the movie. Why would he invite all these people, some of them strangers to Mabel, over to his house when his wife is in such a fragile state? It's simply idiotic. Later, after Mabel comes in the house, Mabel's father has a huge outburst at Nick, screaming at the top of his lungs about not wanting to eat spaghetti. His daughter has just gotten back from six months of rehabilitation, and the thing you want to do is keep her calm, and he goes nuts over spaghetti? A few minutes later in the film, Nick brings Mabel into the stairwell and forces her to do the things she did when she was mentally unstable; make her weird noises and gestures. Didn't he send her there to make her better and not do those things? There were various other parts that occurred after this, but it would just be redundant to look at them in more detail. I guess I just had a serious problem with the decision by Cassavetes to have his characters act in this way. It simply didn't make sense.

However, although I had problems with the ending of the film, there was one aspect that really redeemed it; the acting. Gena Rowlands played an amazing crazy woman. There were times when I forgot she was acting, where I got so caught up in her wild gesticulations and crazy talk that I was actually scared of her. She was amazingly convincing and intense. However, I was also impressed by the rest of Mabel's family. Peter Falk played a very strange character, and I almost thought he was crazy himself, because of the awkward way he handled his children, his job, and especially the situation with his wife. I also usually don't appreciate child actors. But the young people who played Nick and Mabel's children in this film were phenomenal. It really felt like they were Mabel's children, because they seemed so attached to her and were so interesting in helping her with her problem. I think their performances are one of the things that kept this film together, and without them it would have made the film less realistic and less intense.

In general I wasn't impressed by this film. The story was jumbled and unclear, and the characters acted in ways that made me wonder who wasn't insane in the movie. The only saving grace were brilliant lead acting roles of the Longhetti family. Their realistic dialogue and powerful acting kept the film together, and are probably the only reason the film has ever amounted to anything.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: A doctor and a policeman in New Orleans have only 48 hours to locate a killer infected with pneumonic plague.

An effective, and classy, little thriller directed by Elia Kazan that blends documentary realism with a race against time pulpy heartbeat. Set and filmed in and around New Orleans, Panic In The Streets is taken from the story Quarantine, Some Like 'em Cold by Edna and Edward Anhalt who won an Oscar for original story. It also boasts a fine ensemble cast that deliver top rate performances for their director. In turn, Richard Widmark {bringing the method a year before Marlon did for Kazan in A Streetcar Named Desire}, Paul Douglas, Jack Palance (as Walter Jack Palance) & the wonderfully named Zero Mostel, all get sweatily moody as the pursuers chase the pursued to halt the onset of a potential Black Death epidemic.

Where the film scores its main suspense points is with Kazan's astute ability to cut back and forth between the protagonists without altering the flow and mood of the piece. From Widmark's Public Health doctor, with hypodermic needle in hand, running around trying to locate the bad guys so he can do good; to the bad guys themselves who are bemused as to why there is such a wide scale hunt for them; the tension is stacked up to fever breaking point. To which thankfully the final thirty minutes becomes a cracking piece of cinema. With Palance excelling as a nasty villain that ironically puts one in mind of Widmark's own Tommy Udo from Kiss Of Death three years prior.

It's an imaginative and intelligently written story, one that cunningly links rats and criminals to being carriers of disease. A blight on society as it were. It's noirish elements, such as paranoia, blend nicely with its basic procedural thriller being. While some memorable scenes are suitably cloaked by the stifling atmosphere that Kazan has created. Although some of the early character psychologizing threatens to steer the film down some over talky based alleyway, this definitely is a film worth staying with to the end. Not essential film-noir, and maybe not even essential Kazan, but certainly a highly recommended film that begs to be discovered by a new generation of film lovers and reappraised by the old guard who may have missed it back in the day. 7.5/10
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I was looking for a cute, simple comedy to pass the time but choosing this film proved to be an enormous mistake.

I can't write a single good thing about it. First, the script is stupid and not funny at all, relying on tired, recycled jokes and a farting turtle for laughs. In my book, that's not funny, that's pathetic.

Low budget 'effects' (if I can even call them effects) with horrible cinematography. In many places it feels almost like an indie film shot with no money.

Acting... I feel sorry for the actors. Are Pamela Anderson and Denise Richards that desperate for some money that they've agreed to take part in this? (looking at their recent filmography, it would appear so.) Despite the outfits, Pamela is showing her age and as a whole, they don't even come across as sexy, let alone funny.

This movie is not even in the so-bad-it-is-funny category. It's just bad, as if everybody involved was sick of it.

Avoid.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
negative