Change Your Image
d.e.katz
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Invitation to a Murder (2023)
Utterly Dreadful
I am a fan of Agatha Christie and Dorothy Sayers mysteries; they are, for the most part, entertaining, well written and suspenseful. The many stage and screen adaptations of stories by these authors have delighted audiences for decades. That said, imitators abound, and some produce a quality product. In the case of "Invitation to a Murder," however, I found no redeeming value. Foolishly, I ignored the reviews and purchased the DVD.
There is nothing good to say about this movie. The dialog is trite; the acting is awful (though that could be the fault of the director); the score is overbearing; even the lighting is uneven. The characters are undeveloped and weak. Their interaction is forced (and, frankly, unbelievable). The story makes no sense at all, and even the denouement is patently ridiculous.
It appears as though the producers intended this to be a pilot for a TV series featuring Mischa Barton as a Miss Marple-type amateur detective. If that is the case, and with all do respect to Ms. Barton, she should run fast in the opposite direction.
Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Ludicrous Plot
I first saw this film in the theater when I was a teenager, and I loved it then. It is unquestionably a thrilling adventure filled with lots of action, explosions, and derring-do. But watching it as an adult after having seen hundreds of other (better) movies over the past 50+ years, I find my cynicism checking in, and I realize that the willing suspension of disbelief can carry me only so far.
I don't understand why the director failed to insist that the principal actors (men and women) have hairstyles akin to what was appropriate for the mid-1940s rather than the late 1960s. And the women's costumes were pure 1968-- short skirts in Nazi Germany? Really?
And the elaborate plot makes absolutely no sense at all. If MI-6 suspected the Nazi agents, they would have arrested them, pumped them dry for information and then turned them as double agents. In fact, this is exactly what they did to every Nazi agent in Britain; it was called the Double-Cross System, and it was fairly well known at the time the movie was produced. That said, I suppose they felt they needed an elaborate and intricate plot to make a movie.
But OK--even accepting the ludicrous plot, how can the viewer accept that such a far-fetched plan with a very high probability of failure would succeed? Start with Smith and Shaeffer riding atop the cable car to obtain access to the castle: is it even plausible that no one in the cable car's control tower would fail to spot them exposed as they are on the roof?
Major Smith anticipates every single adverse situation and reacts in the best possible way; he knows exactly where every resource is and performs with 100% perfection at every turn.
Oh, and one last point: like the storm troopers in Star Wars, the German soldiers cannot hit anything at which they shoot, but the good guys not only manage to hit every target, they never run out of ammunition! And how is it that automobiles explode after having been hit by bullets?
Syrup (2013)
Not the dumbest movie I have ever seen, but close
This movie has one redeeming quality: Amber Heard is pretty to look at. That's it.
There is no on-screen chemistry between any of the actors and the plot makes no sense. As satire, it falls flat because there are no characters, only caricatures.
Without Remorse (2021)
A Bomb
This is one of the worst movies ever made. The plot (what little there was of it) made no sense at all. I'm all for the willing suspension of disbelief when watching an adventure yarn, but this movie requires the viewer to suspend all knowledge of the real world--and it isn't a science fiction movie.
Utter dreck.
Rebecca (2020)
A disappointing adaptation
This adaptation of Daphne DuMaurier's magnificent novel cannot hold a candle to Alfred Hitchcock's 1938 adaptation starring Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine, nor is it comparable to the terrific 1997 BBC mini-series starring Charles Dance and Emilia Fox.
As was his wont, Hitchcock added his own touch to his version of the book, similar to what he did in his other adaptations. For example, in both Rebecca and Suspicion, he changed the ending of the story or altered the presentation due to such considerations as audiences unwilling to accept stars like Laurence Olivier and Cary Grant being guilty of murder. The 1997 BBC adaptation was much truer to the original novel and was brilliantly presented.
With respect to this 2020 Netflix entry, they should have left it in the can. Armie Hammer is unconvincing as a British aristocrat; he is neither Olivier nor Dance. Lily James suffers from poor direction and she hasn't anywhere near the acting chops of Joan Fontaine or Emilia Fox. Kristin Scott Thomas is a worthy successor to Dame Judith Anderson, offering an excellent portrayal of the wicked Mrs. Danvers, but even that cannot save this film from mediocrity. (Truth be told, the Mrs. Danvers character is the juiciest in the story.)
The worst part of the movie is how the writers have altered the denoument completely, weakening both its punch and surprise. One of the principal supporting characters, Jack Favell (portrayed by Sam Riley), is reduced to a simpering boor; his role has become almost an afterthought rather than the key on which the story turns. George Sanders and Jonathan Cake each gave masterful renditions of Favell's venality in the 1940 and 1997 versions, respectively.
It is a shame that the original material has been so badly diluted.
The Apparition (2012)
Dreck
The only thing worth watching in this movie is Ashley Greene--not for her acting, but because she is nice to look at. That's it. Apart from the fact that the plot (what little there is of it) makes no sense, the movie has insipid dialog, atrocious acting, amateur directing, pallid cinematography, and weak editing. This movie seems like a weak entry from a first-year film student. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME.
The only reason I gave it one star was because I couldn't give it zero stars.
The Lady Vanishes (2013)
Brilliant adaptation of the original novel; NOT a remake of the 1938 Hitchcock masterpiece
I find myself to be utterly annoyed with reviewers who compare this excellent BBC adaptation with Alfred Hitchcock's 1938 masterpiece. This version is a faithful adaptation of Ethel Lena White's psychological mystery novel, The Wheel Spins; Hitchcock used only the premise of the novel and added his own brilliant (often comedic) touches to make the story cinematically appealing for contemporary movie audiences. This approach is similar to what Hitchcock did in many of his other adaptations, including Rebecca and Suspicion, in which he changed the ending of the story or altered the presentation due to such considerations as audiences unwilling to accept stars like Laurence Olivier and Cary Grant being guilty of murder.
As for this 2013 version of The Lady Vanishes, directed by Diarmuid Lawrence, it is a straight drama, like the original novel. Although many contemporary readers may have overlooked the novel, I highly recommend it, as I do this adaptation.
Hunters (2020)
Dreck
Terrible acting. Terrible story. Filled with inconsistencies and plot lines that made little to no sense. I know it was intended to have a comic-book feel to it, but it isn't even up to the standards of comic books.
The writers merely took a few kernels of historical events, such as Operation Paperclip (the integration of more than a thousand Nazi scientists, engineers, and others into American society in order to use them against the Soviet Union) and tried to create an overwrought miniseries about vigilante vengeance.
None of it was remotely believable.
Three Days of the Condor (1975)
This is an update of "The 39 Steps"
I saw this movie in the theater when it was first released, and I loved it. Recently, I re-watched it on a streaming platform, and I realized why I liked it so much--it is, essentially, an update of the 1935 Alfred Hitchcock classic, "The 39 Steps," itself loosely adapted from the classic John Buchan novel, "The Thirty-Nine Steps."
The plot structure is virtually identical to Hitchcock's adaptation, and like that great movie, it is a ripping yarn, wonderfully acted and directed.
The ABC Murders (2018)
Unusual adaptation
This latest adaptation of The ABC Murders is unusual. I use this adjective deliberately, because it conveys my ambivalent feelings toward this version of one of Agatha Christie's most famous murder mysteries. There was an adptation in 1965 with Tony Randall portraying Poirot; it was terrible. The Masterpiece Mystery series 1992 version starring David Suchet as Poirot was outstanding in that it conveyed the plot and he characteizations crated by Christie both arfully and faiihfully.
This version generally cleaves to the murder plot of the novel; however, it creates an entirely new version of Poirot's personal history completely at odds with that which Christie conveyed in 33 novels an 54 short stories featuring the Belgian detective. Poirot's background was so well known throughout the world that he is the only fictional character ever to have received an obituary in the New York Times after Christie's final Poirot novel, Curtain, killed the detective in 1975.
A film adaptation of a novel is not required to be entirely faithful to its source; after all, film is a separate medium that requires its own manner of conveying a story. While it might be acceptable to supplement or enhance a renowned character's back-story to provide new insight into his or her motivation, it is incumbent upon the screenwriter to maintain the essence of the original's intent. It would be inappropriate, for example, to change Romeo's back-story to eliminate the rivalry between the Montagues and the Capulets.
Overall, I found this film to be entertaining, but I would reccommend the 1992 version featuring David Suchet as the definitive adaptation.
Bad Moms (2016)
Dreck
I could only manage watching 20 minutes of this atrocious piece of crap before I had to stop. Someone should have mentioned to the writers that excessive exaggeration is not the same as comedy. I felt bad for Mila Kunis, who deserves (and has performed in) better roles in better films, such as Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I wish I could be more helpful, but, as I stated, I just could manage to make it through the whole film. My advice: don't waste your time. You'd be better served by taking a nap.
Sisters (2015)
The Blooper Reel at the end was better than the movie.
This was a disappointment from beginning to end, especially since the cast members are all great comedic performers with an astonishing list of great credits. Unfortunately, the writing was weak and the comedy was predictable. The movie is just a weak re-hash of Risky Business, but instead of a teenager throwing a wild party while his parents are away, middle-aged adults throw a wild party in the about-to-be-sold house of their retired parents.
There are a few stand-out performances, though. Bobby Moynihan is absolutely hilarious as the now grown-up guy from high school who thought he was a great comedian but was simply a boring ass. He nailed it. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are usually great (and usually great together) but this time they misfired. Kate McKinnon puts in a cameo appearance as a lesbian neighbor; I wish she had been given a bigger role because she is the funniest lady on the planet.
Warning: you'll never be able to get the time back you spend watching this dud. I gave it a 4 out of 10 in consideration of the great cast.
Final Girl (2015)
Worst piece of cr*p ever put on film
I can't believe I wasted an hour and a half watching this execrable film. I suppose I kept hoping it would get better, but each passing minute was worse than the minute before. The acting was terrible, the writing, direction and cinematography were worse. Whoever green-lit this abysmal piece of dreck must have been stoned. What began as an interesting premise (lifted, perhaps, from Joe Wright's "Hanna" starring Saoirse Ronan and Eric Bana) quickly devolved into a putrid mess that made little sense.
In virtually every scene, it was raining hard, but none of the characters seemed to get wet. Much of the film is set in the woods at night, but there is a bright shining light illuminating the scenes (presumably the moon that never seems to rise) and which emanates from all directions.
The dialog is inane; the writers have given the characters - both protagonists and antagonists - no underlying motivation (certainly none that is explained). The chronology makes no sense. The ending is ludicrous. I can only assume the cast accepted their roles either because they were paid a lot of money or the producers blackmailed them.
Studio One: The Defender: Part 1 (1957)
Pure dreck
Frankly, this Studio One presentation is an insult to the legal profession. The writing is atrocious and the actors chew the scenery relentlessly.
To begin with, Bellamy's character - a veteran attorney - commits legal malpractice in failing to offer his client an adequate defense. Among other things, he prejudges his client (not his job), he fails to object to the prosecutor introducing a surprise witness (not permitted); he fails to object to the prosecutor badgering a defense witness, and he consents to a ludicrous, outrageous stunt to impeach the principal prosecution witnesses. Frankly, they could have been impeached without the trick.
While most courtroom dramas stretch credulity, this abysmal effort destroys the willing suspension of disbelief.
They Were Expendable (1945)
One of the best movies, based on one of the best books of WWII
Most of the reviews I've read seem to miss the point of this poignant, moving story. With respect to the film itself, it is well acted, brilliantly directed, and the B&W cinematography conveys the grittiness of the subject matter. To gain a better appreciation of the true story of MTB Squadron 3, read William L. White's magnificent book (same title). Lt. John Brickley = Lt. (later Admiral) John Bulkeley; Lt. Rusty Ryan = Lt. Robert Kelly; Ens. Tony Aiken = Ens. Anthony Akers; Ens. George Cross = Ens. George Cox. These were REAL people! I don't understand why John Ford didn't use their real names. Basically, these servicemen & women were on the Titanic with all the lifeboats gone, and they knew it. There was no relief coming; the prospect of capture by the Japanese was, perhaps, worse than death; these people knew what the Japanese had done to captives in China and Southeast Asia. This is the story of remarkable grace and bravery under the worst possible conditions. Perhaps only the story of the siege of Wake Island (Dec. 7-23, 1941) rivals it for pure, true drama (too bad the movie about that one was all propaganda).
Zero Hour! (1957)
I first saw this on television (on the afternoon "Million Dollar Movie") in the Boston area when I was a kid.
I first saw this on television (on the afternoon "Million Dollar Movie") in the Boston area when I was a kid and I loved it. I thought it was better than "The High and the Mighty."
The situation is believable only if one considers the era in which it was made; that is, in the days of propeller-driven aircraft, one could believe that the flight attendants might ask a passenger to take control of the plane when the pilot, co-pilot and navigator are all out of commission.
When "Airplane" came out in 1980, I told my friends it was based almost exactly on "Zero Hour," but no one believed me -- they all thought "Airplane" was based on "Airport." I can't watch this movie now without thinking of Airplane, but I still think it's great.