By the end of the film I hadn’t learned a thing about the ruthless Jimmy Cobb (Lee Marvin, who rarely has much to do other than sound cool and hide) other than he shoots his victims on the knees before or after killing them for reasons that are never explained. The nefariously one dimensional family members at the farm seem contrived, and the boy (David Bennett) is a device leaned towards tiresome hilarity rather than irony. The summary of Dog…
An astoundingly long and uneven picture. I must admit, could not finish. As a historical account, Otto Preminger is aiming for a massive epitome in lines with Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments; however, the founding of Israel is a topic I (for one, who knows perhaps as much as the next guy you’d be skeptic about knowing) see as untouchable, or at least not merely involving in this film.
And let me just be real here saying my biggest qualm is within its power house casting. But hey, a powerhouse production calls for the powerhouse stars.
I don't care, this movie is nonviable. Ferris, himself, is an asshole -- completely takes advantage of Cameron's depressive anecdote for his own escapism and amusement. The parade scene pisses me off because it can never happen, but in the world of John Hughes', I guess it can.
A stick in the mud I maybe, but this movie is all an inane exercise. Can this really only be Matthew Broderick's 'great' leading role?
[1942 Version] ... and a REVISIT of the 1925 version.
Chaplin's updated version of The Gold Rush leaves out a few pivotal and enchanting bits from his 1925 version. With sound added, there's still humorous charm and even though its shortened of twenty minutes, I was still delighted. However, The Gold Rush, in its original form, is a triumph under the auteur's design. This is the film (despite City Lights), Chaplin wanted to be remembered for, though it wasn't and…