IN: Review: Domini Enfilren (Marlene Dietrich) has spent most of her life caring for her father. Now that he has died she is free--but doesn't know what she wants. Boris Androvsky (Charles Boyer) is a monk who has fled a monastery to taste more of life. They meet accidentally in Algiers, fall in love and get married. But he can't leave his past behind and she can't live without him...

WAY overdone romance full of hysterically bad dialogue and situations. Dietrich and Boyer do their best to give good performances but NOBODY could get away with some of their lines! Still, in a way, it is a classic. It's shot in gorgeous Technicolor (try to see it on DVD) where every frame is breath-takingly beautiful. Dietrich is always dressed to the 9s (even in the middle of the desert) and strikes hysterical poses to show off the clothes and her body. Boyer just walks around looking stricken (no shock there). Still I was never bored. It was wonderful to look at and the non-stop stupid dialogue kept me in stitches. The end almost had me falling out of my chair because I was laughing so hard! Now I love corny romances and give them plenty of space but really---this is unbelievable! It also runs a very short 80 minutes.

As a camp classic I give this an 8. As a serious movie--a 1.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: The main reason for writing this review is I found this "revisioning" of a great play and worthy 1972 film, a horrible movie experience. If I can save someone from watching it, I will have done a good thing.

This "new" version is loaded with talent, and it all goes wrong. Kenneth Branagh OKs an ugly, sterile, one note set. He proceeds to film the movie from every arty, distracting, self-centered angle possible. We see reflections of the actors in stainless steel, on security monitors, shots of their heads from 200 ft above, close ups of eyes, chins, and on and on. The screenplay, by a Nobel Laureate, introduces long stretchs of unpleasant homosexual banter, that is being faked by both parties,.... I think?? Given the character "twists" how would I know? The characters themselves,so richly drawn in the original, are crass and unsympathetic. The running time has been cut by an hour, which is either the real problem or the kindest thing the Director did for us. The actors perform their lines effectively, but nothing they say or do is remotely believable. Jude Law is over the top more than Caine, but as the credited Producer, must have had Branagh's blessing.

All in all I found this to be an ugly to look at, unconvincing shell of a former classic. Why was it even made??? The paying public spent less that $4M worldwide to see it! A vanity piece of work that fails at every turn.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Swedish action movies have over the past few years evolved into something that imitate American hardened action movies like "Heat" but with a low budget. This movie follows the same prescription as "Noll Tolerans" and "Livvakterna". However, it is obvious that they are trying too hard to make a cool and tough movie.

The story has been seen before, the dialogue feels artificial and the acting is very poor, especially from the main actress. The movie tries to paint a picture of hard-boiled military-like robbers with no remorse at all and a female investigator who has completely lost it with problems of the past but at the same time acts completely rational. It does not succeed very well.

The bluish-cast photo style does not seem fresh anymore, and it is not even done well in this picture. Only a very few scenes actually look good. Also, the sound is quite weird and it sounds like a lot of the actual dialogue is recorded afterward.

The main quality of this movie is Stefan Sauk, though not making a convincing portrait of a SWAT-team leader, has some really funny lines. Also, the music is quite well.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Hated it. If you believe that everyone in the South is dumb, morally bankrupt, stupid, violent, a religious nut, or a child molester, then this film may be for you. Everyone is poor and seemingly ignorant. In one scene, two older men are talking in a general store and one mentions that he had molested a set of sisters before they could tie their shoes. The man seemed proud of his actions, and the other man clearly took it as a normal part of life. Very nice. A teenage girl walks the back roads looking for her sister and no one offers to help her -- despite an obvious limp and lack of food or water (no backpack, etc.). Strathairn's character is not only thoroughly disgusting and slimy, but he is shown to be a religious believer who (typical for Hollywood) reflects the vile nature of Christians. A scene in the movie is highly reminiscent of the end of Cape Fear (the one with DeNiro) -- Bible verses being spouted by the bad guy. I am from the Great Northwest, but found this film offensive because of the wonderful people I know who are from NC, WV, AL, MS, KY, TN, etc.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
negative