IN: Review: An unmarried woman named Stella (Bette Midler) gets pregnant by a wealthy man (Stephen Collins). He offers to marry her out of a sense of obligation but she turns him down flat and decides to raise the kid on her own. Things go OK until the child named Jenny (Trini Alvarado) becomes a teenager and things gradually (and predictably) become worse.

I've seen both the silent version and sound version of "Stella Dallas". Neither one affected me much (and I cry easily) but they were well-made if dated. Trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea. I guess Midler had enough power after the incomprehensible success of "Beaches" to get this made. This (predictably) bombed. The story is laughable and dated by today's standards. Even though Midler and Alvarado give good performances this film really drags and I was bored silly by the end. Stephen Collins and Marsha Mason (both good actors) don't help in supporting roles. Flimsy and dull. Really--who thought this would work? See the 1937 Stanwyck version instead. I give this a 1.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: ...thankfully he hasn't, yet! This is crude, simplistic student politics made into drama. It needs the viewer to buy into a series of conceits. Conceit 1: That a British electorate could be swung from being basically right of centre to being overwhelmingly far left. Conceit 2: That all debate in the media and the general public is unanimously ended and that the new Prime Minister's only critics are sinister civil servants, MI5, big business and the Americans (naturally). Conceit 3: That this radical socialist PM can solve all union, economic and social problems with consummate ease in a way that unites the nation. Conceit 4: That severing all ties with the US and NATO is a good thing. Conceit 5: That the Soviet Union isn't a brutal and oppressive regime and that we should have had closer times with them back in the 80's. And finally, Conceit 6: That the reactionary forces of the US would actively seek to launch a coup d'etat against Britain.

It's ludicrous and the show only gained the reputation that it did by trying to cash in on some anti-Thatcher feeling in the country and having left wing TV critics singing its praises. When it was made, television was still a hugely popular and influential medium with shows getting huge ratings so a widely talked about drama with a hint of controversy had a good chance of getting a big audience. Ray McInally's performance was great, which is one of the few plus points. History and time has shown the huge weakness in the premise and plot of this show.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.

It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality.

This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.

It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: When this film opened back in 1976, legend has that it was met with massive jeering and disdain --- it was widely considered a failure. I vividly remember Ebert giving it one star and it was supposedly booed at Cannes.

Apparently these people didn't understand the movie, which is not that hard to comprehend since it's very esoteric, dark, and layered in ways that still astound me. Reading through many of the reviews here I find (even after about 7-8 viewings over the years) many elements of the film I had previously glossed over. But even without understanding much the psychological underpinnings of the story, it's still a cracking suspenser...even if you just take the escalating paranoia and persecution that overtakes Polanski's title character like a tsunami wave over the course of it's two hour running time.

Examining the source material --- an excellent novella by underrated novelist Roland Topor --- uncovers more intriguing layers. Polanski's Trekovsky is a milquetoast of the highest order. Though he seems at first to be yet another mild everyday soul, one gradually realizes he is one of those people who seems to aimlessly drift through life, letting it direct him. He seems to have few strong feelings about his likes and dislikes. He finds himself gently pushed this way and that, but never seems to get too bent out of shape regardless. This vague sort of wishy-washy-ness is more noticeable in the novel than the movie, but there are hints of it early in the film too.

Making a play for the apartment of a woman, one Mademouiselle Choule, who is in the hospital recovering from a recent suicide attempt, appears to be the most daring thing he has attempted (even effectively haggling down the price of the deposit in the bargain). He soon finds, however, that he is paying for his "good thing" in more ways than he cares, as he finds himself in the center of maelstrom created by a building full of neurotic, control freaks who are hypersensitive to even the slightest sign of human life, such as a footstep in the night or a knock on the door.

Instead of taking a stand though, Trelkovsky becomes increasingly alienated by the situation, and overtaken by paranoia and a sense of persecution. He becomes obsessed with Choule, imagining himself to be like her, dressing like her, etc. as his own personality rapidly begins to be wiped away by his own insanity.

If anyone has ever doubted Polanski's fearlessness as an artist, they'd be well-advised to see this film. His trademark black humor is prominently (and sometimes embarrassingly) on display here and --- god bless him --- he makes himself the butt of it. It's a tour de force performance in one of the richest, riskiest, most Gothic horror movies ever made. That more people haven't seen it is a true crime.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
positive