IN: Review: First of all this was not a three hour movie - Two hours, ten minutes... last time i checked commercials aren't actually part of a movie! Perhaps, though, it should've been a two parter for a total of about 3 hours? Yeah, would have gotten more in, been able to explore some more emotion. Overall, though, it was an interesting look into the lives of Lucy and Desi. I watch I Love Lucy from time to time and love it but never have I read or seen a biography, never knew anything about their lives off the screen. Because of this movie I do now but I'm not so sure that's a good thing. Everything here no one really needed to know. This was essentially a movie that didn't need to be made. But it was made and the reason is because Lucy & Desi are still such huge stars and certain people in American society feel that the rest of society needs to know ALL about our tv and movie stars. That is definitely so not true and very, very sad.

Anyway, what was shown here in Lucy was pretty good. Two complaints - the actress who played Viv Vance - not great casting at all. And the switch from Madeline Zima to Rachel York.... uhhh, like Lucy had plastic surgery and all of a sudden she's a whole new person!? That wasn't too great. But the story went on and focused on the rocky relationship between Lucy & Desi. No, the kids were not shown very much at all and that wasn't necessarily a drawback to this movie because like I said, this focused mainly just on Lucy & Desi. Had there been more time, had the story been more about Lucy's entire life, then maybe the kids woulda been there more. But they weren't so we got to see the likes of Gable & Lombard, Red Skelton and Buster Keaton very briefly instead. Wow, that was one thing about this story that I thought was really cool: his presence and influence in Lucy's life. Really neat and it's too bad that wasn't explored more. Oh well. What was explored was done well, for the most part. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever watch this again and I don't think this movie'll be that memorable. For someone who digs I Love Lucy but isn't an enormous Lucille Ball fan, this should be an interesting watch. My grade for this: B
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Oh just what I needed,another movie about 19th century England. Which is pretty much like regular England,only nobody's vandalising football stadiums.In this picturesque setting of lords,dames and other randomly chosen titles,Charlotte Gainsbourg walks around aimlessly as Jane Eyre,from that novel nobody has ever read willingly.Jane usually hangs out in Mr.Rochester's crib,where she tries to teach a French girl to look at an empty chalkboard all the time.One day,Mr.Rochester(William Hurt on auto-pilot)comes back to fall in love with Jane and all that,but there's still the matter of his fruitcake wife that is locked in the attic.Oops,that wasn't in the brochure.After some people being thrown around and some carefully spread fire(they probably rented the set),the movie finally comes to an end.Everything looked really authentic,that's something I guess.But then again,nah.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Of course I would have to give this film 10 out of 10 as my uncle was the main screenplay writer of Once upon a Crime. Rodolfo Sonego wrote screenplays for over 50 years living in Italy. He was a great story teller and someone suggested that he put his stories into writing. So Rodolfo Sonego did. If you check out his biography, you can see the number of movies that have been made in Italy. Alberto Sordie was the main actor that starred in his stories. My uncle visited Australia and my town, in 1968 to check out locations for "A girl in Australia" and created a great movie about a proxy bride after the second world war. You can see his humor in all his movies. I found a copy of this movie on DVD recently. GREAT
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This is actually a pretty bad film. The ideology is not as perverse as in those films Collins made later. However, my main misgivings about the film are that it is implausible and quite frankly boring for a long time. The whole concept of an ex-SAS man joining terrorists for no particular reason isn't very convincing and you can't help wondering why a group of highly organized terrorists (who later become pretty clueless) fall for it. The film starts with a pretty powerful scene but then meanders for quite a long time building up towards the great finale. Overall, I think Who dares wins could have been an interesting 45 minutes episode of The Professionals but the story doesn't carry a feature film. Although reasonably successful at the time this film initiated the demise of Collins' career who in the eighties mainly made cheap and dubious soldier-of-fortune or army films. Pity, because he actually is quite a versatile actor but at the end of the day Martin Shaw chose his roles more carefully and has a career that's still successful.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative