Paul-Anderson Movie Reviews

I agree with Seaside, Ca. He's dead on and the Hamlet characterization couldnt be more accurate.

Is there some reason Hollywood cant get Billy the Kid right? This one was just as bad as Peckinpah's offering, and every bit the worst western of the 50's. Actually, I have no words. Read the guy below...apparently I'm the one that's traumatized.

There is a moment in this heavily stylized western where a character, for no real reason, rolls around in the dirt moaning "You're not him! You're not him!". This scene could be a great metaphor for the entire film; because the movie is definitely NOT about the real Billy the Kid. This movie is about Paul Newman turning in a weirdly over-the-top performance and everyone else in the film looking on, aghast. True, there are some good scenes, and Newman has his good moments. He's intense, that's for sure, and also extremely funny, although not always intentionally, I suspect.

The plot concerns the adventures of Billy and his two pals as they avenge the death of a friend of Billy's. They ride around, they shoot people, Billy acts weird, they shoot more people, the law's on their tail, more shooting, Billy seduces the wife of a friend in a weird manner, some shooting, Billy gets caught, acts weird in jail, escapes, and dies weirdly. The highlight of the movie occurs when Billy interupts the wedding of his friend Pat Garrett, and after promising Pat he won't kill anyone "here" proceeds to kill someone a few feet away. Pat then begins stomping around in the mud yelling "My wedding's HERE! And HERE! And HEEEERRRRE!". It didn't make sense to me either.

Pat vows to bring Billy in for his long-overdue hanging, and so he does, only to experience post Billy-Arresting Depression.
Finally ending about twenty minutes later than it should, it's fair to say "The Left Handed Gun" left me pretty much speechless. I mean, it's AMLOST a good movie, but then something bizarre will happen, or the dialogue will get really strange, and it's derailed again. And poor Paul seems to think he's playing Hamlet or something; I seriously doubt Billy the Kid, or anyone in the Old West, was this full of angst.
To be fair, I must mention I saw this movie with my sister at 3 in the morning, so my view may be a bit warped. Plus my sister said she liked it, but she did look a bit traumatized. View at your own risk.
(If you do see it, watch out for the scene where "Moon" dies, nose flattened against a window pane. Kinda funny.)

I'm not really a western movie fan, but this one caught my attention completely. I believe that it was a very good movie. Paul Newman did a brilliant job playing "Billy the Kid." It had a great story and believable characters, which makes this movie a fantastic one.

When I first went to rent this movie, I was expecting a wonderfully portayed old-english love story with one of my favorite actors, Sean Bean. However, after watching it, I feel it falls short of a romance movie and instead makes its way toward a low-budget comedy movie. This movie was entertaining in that it had comical value in one of the main characters, John Ridd and it had some rather funny action scenes. It lost its potential as a romance when the production crew spent all its money on mediocre actors and gave little attention to sound effects and the screenplay itself.

To appreciate this video you must have an intrest in old England and the period around the 'Monmouth Rebellion' It is a tale of Love overcoming barriers in the West of England in the Counties of Devon and Somerset. Realistic shooting captures the era well and avoids Holywood 'glitz'. Worth watching.

Lorna Doone is the story of the banished"Doone" clan, and it is a period film that Sean Bean does very well. Sean plays Carver Doone a man who must live by his wits after he and his clan are banished. Its the story of the love also between John Ridd and Lorna Doone, who was married to Carver. Sean's character is masterfully played, he is a man who is a product of his environment, who must hunt, hurt and yes steal in order to have his family survive! Its Sean Bean at his best, and it also stars his castmates from "Patriot Games" Polly Walker and Hugh Fraser, its a period film that should be seen! Its Sean Bean with the walk and the language of a man who is forced to become an outlaw so that he can survive, its a man who does what he hates to do in order to live, and its the story of Carver's love for Lorna as well as John Ridd's love for her. Enjoy the film! Sean Bean does wonderful work for the BBC and English TV.

great family fun.good clean humor.

I liked this movie when I was young and enjoy seeing it again. My favorite of the Disney Medfield college series.

My six year old loved this movie just as much as I did when I was a kid. Considerly the movie fare for kids today, the hokey Disney (under the Buena Vista banner) movies from the 60's and 70's are great family entertainment. I'd like to see Disney update a few more of these old classics.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The TV-movie version of "The Long, Hot Summer" suffers from miscasting (Judith Ivey was passable, but just, and I can't decide if Don Johnson's attempt to fill Paul Newman's shoes represents touching bravery or misguided arrogance), dreadful accents, and jarring anachronisms. The 1958 classic leaves it in the dust. Newman and Woodward generate palpable heat, and Orson Welles--clammy, jowly, bullfrog-voiced, crudely vigorous--is unforgettable as a classically bullying, overbearing Southern patriarch.
In contrast to the pallid TV remake, the original film features a top cast whose work transcends the sometimes creaky melodrama of the plot. Nearly every white Southern archetype is brought to life: the brutish, domineering, castrating patriarch; the arch, charming, coyly seductive belle with hot pants; the aging good-time girl, simultaneously randy and prim, with her eye on the prize of a rich widower; the hotheaded but weak son and heir, cuckolded by his wife and utterly dominated by his father, whom he both adores and despises; the sharp-tongued old maid, smoldering with repressed fire, who just needs a "real man" to take the place of her suspiciously lukewarm long-term suitor; and, of course, the roguish, charming, sexy, potentially dangerous outsider, spiritual heir to Rhett Butler, who gets both the community and the heroine in a lather. There's even a lynch mob--chasing a white man, for a change.
My advice is to skip the TV-movie remake, which at best is a clunky imitation, in favor of the 1958 original. It's marvelously scripted, acted, and directed, and it captures Southern family dynamics with humor, pathos, and wince-inducing accuracy. Florence King would be proud.

"The Long Hot Summer" was (for its time)a steamy study of sexual repression and sensual misbehavior. It starred Paul Newman as a drifter accused of barn burning who sets up house-keeping with the daughter (Joanne Woodward) of a rich plantation owner (Orson Welles). The on screen chemistry is certainly there and why not. This film just happened to be the catalyst for the real life romance between Newman and Woodward. Contextualizing the fact that the censors still reigned supreme during the time of its production, "The Long Hot Summer" still proved to be a smoldering, sexy drama fraught with tension and chaos.
THE TRANSFER: Fox has done a particularly nice job on remastering this movie. Yes, the flicker of scene changes (inherant in all early Cinemascope films)remains present and yes, color consistancy leaves something to be desired. But over all, colors are nicely balanced, if showing slight fading. Contrast and shadow levels are well represented. Pixelization, shimmering and edge enhancement, though all present, are kept to a bare minimum. The audio is Stereo surround and, even though considerably dated, still manages to have a hearty kick in all of the speakers.
EXTRAS: Very nice - the Backstory featurette that details the production of the film, a Paul Newman gallery, original movietone snippet and the film's theatrical trailer.
BOTTOM LINE: This is a nice presentation and a pretty good film besides. At the extremely economical price that Fox has advertised it at, "The Long Hot Summer" is guaranteed to burn up your DVD player.

I rated this film with four stars though on most measurable levels, it is worthy of maybe three. The plot is a montage, some say mish-mash of Faulkner's literary works. Still, the film works..... most of the time. Jerry Wald's production has 1950's sensibilities written all over it. A real strength of this film lies in the charismatic on-screen performance of young Paul Newman's Ben Quick and his incendiary relationship with Orson Welles' Will Varner. It is said the editing room had to re-do much of Welles' dialogue to make it intelligible for the audience. Whatever. I am fascinated by virtually every word uttered in Welles' quirky interpretation of a portly, gravelly voiced redneck hell-bent to leave his greasy thumbprint on all who would come under his influence. For 62 year old Varner to race about town in a Jeep as his personal conveyance of choice completes the picture of a man unbowed in the presence of all others. Eager to marry his daughter off to perpetuate his legacy, Will encouraged Ben anyway he could. In all things, he could be demanding and callous, yet in a rare display of affection, Will uncharacteristically and tenderly explained to his sensitive daughter Clara, (Joanne Woodward) "Sometimes the strong just rolls over the weak." Angela Lansbury played Minnie LittleJohn, a retired women of the evening. As an inevitable consequence of age, her world weariness and palpable sense of urgency that time was running out expedited a patient and sincere pursuit of Will for his hand in marriage. Richard Anderson portrayed Alan Stewart, Clara's long-time supposed suitor, an elegant, tasteful and honorable southern gentleman. Outed by an impatient Varner, and forced to declare his sexual orientation, he had to finally declare his unsuitability for Clara's hand in marriage. To me, the one miscast major actor in this film was Anthony Franciosa as Will's disaffected son, Jody. It was difficult for me to accept a dark and somewhat ethic Franciosa as a privileged son of the deep south, though Lee Remick positively shined as his highly desirable sexually charged wife Eula. The obvious on-screen chemistry shared of Newman and Woodward in "The Long, Hot Summer" is the stuff of Hollywood legend. Those were real sparks of passion arcing between them, the camera just documented the fireworks for posterity. Their highly charged scenes make the price of admission all the more reasonable and justification enough for me to rate this film with 4 stars.

1997 saw two, count 'em, two TV versions of the classic Jules Verne adventure "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea." The least literate, this version tosses out much of Verne's loftier discussions of Victorian science and philosophy and replaces them with watered-down romance of the drugstore bookrack variety. Ben Cross is a stone-cold Nemo (how sadly far we've come from James Mason's tortured nobleman in the 1954 Disney version), skulking about his steel-plated creation, the Nautilus, with a seemingly nameless and faceless crew. Into his nomadic existence comes a group of castaways, led by the sympathetic, if tired-looking Richard Crenna as marine biologist Pierre Arronax. There's also a joyless love-story between Nemo and Arronax's outspoken daughter (not featured in the book) that struggles to add emotional fireworks, but simply results in a lurching distraction from the main plot about Nemo's quest for an end to war and human strife. Hammy acting by the supporting cast will make you feel like this is a movie aimed at kids, even with the story's darker overtones. About the only aspects of the film that rise above mediocrity are the production values and special effects. Though this Nautilus is nowhere near as imaginative as the Disney version, it is more faithful to the submarine described in the book, and overall, the look of the film is suitably impressive. Still, fans of Jules Verne will likely appreciate the 1954 film version more, even if poor Kirk Douglas is forced to sing. (The other TV version, by the way, with the usually likeable Michael Caine isn't much better; dark and murky, it bogs down under the weight of its pychobabble script.)

The Jules Verne classic book is copied again on tape. The stars are Richard Crenna, Ben Cross, and the eccentric Julie Cox. It is not the worst version, and I am sure the Crayola Kids version is a lot worse than this. Arronax joins an expedition to find the thing that has been attacking many ships. The daughter beseeches the guy to have her go, and she disguises herself as a boy to get on. Okay, you have to act like a normal cool teenager to do that, not talk about sex as the main subject. The rest is mostly like the book, except there is some kind of other beast instead of a squid. The subplot ain't alienish, but "she" sure doesn't act normal in the submarine. So, try to enjoy the sea theme and ignore the subplot.

Very disappointed in this tape. This tape contains a copy of the movie that was apparently edited for television. I say that becuase I noticed that there were several scenes cut from the movie. The movie on this tape doesn't flow correctly and there are references in the movie to scenes that the viewer never sees.

I wouldn't recommend the purchase of this tape.

Red Skelton gives a rib tickling performance in "The Yellow Cab Man". Skelton plays an accident prone inventor with hilarious results. He has invented a safety glass that will revolutionalize the car industry. He takes the job as a cab driver to prove how safe his Elastiglass really is. Unbeknownst to Skelton, there are other people who want to steal the formula for this fantastic invention for themselves, which results in many funny scenes; such as a truth serum sequence that sends Red back to his childhood and culminating in a rip roaring chase scene inside a Home Show exposition, which centers around a revolting house. So grab the kiddies, popcorn, cola and gather around the t.v. for approx. a hour and a half of side splitting fun!

I like this video because it is an awesome true story of courage and determination. Somewhat similar to Phar Lap, it tells the true story of Archer, an Australian race horse, who is taken over the mountains to Melbourne for the inaugural Melbourne cup and wins! And he does it again two more times. There are a couple of unnecessary bad dream sequences, but overall it is quite well done.

I recently ran across a passle of these hear videos at the local retail store, and being a fan of Tom and Huck movies, I picked on up. One good thing about the switch to DVD, the producers of VHS videos are clearing house! While I would rather have these movies on DVD, many aren't available in that format, such as Back To Hannibal, so this sudden drop in VHS prices has been really helpful. Now this movie is basically what Hook was to Peter Pan. We get to see what happened to Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn after they grew up. The plot deals with Tom and Huck joining forces again and returning to their hometown to help their old friend Jim beat a murder wrap. Not unlike when Tom helped old Muff Potter as a kid. I guess that's where they got the idea of making Tom grow up to be a lawyer. This is one of the things that bugged me the most though. It seemed the roles were reversed when it comes to future careers. I always thought Huck was more suited for being a Lawyer, and in this movie Huck became a writer, which seems to me to be the natural career choice for Tom! Tom was always reading and telling stories as a kid, and Huck was always arguing and lying. Check out the Elijah Wood version of Adventures of Huck Finn. I know it was made much later, but it really emphasizes the point I'm making. In it we see Huck and Jim having a friendly arguement on a raft, and Huck, having stated his point, ends with a "I rest my case!" Anyway, that was a major problem I had with the movie, how their two obvious future careers got used, but each on the wrong character. I also wasn't too happy that everyone was rather unhappy with each other upon meeting again. Huck was angry with Tom for some reason or other, and Becky was angry at them both, everyone was so bitter with each other coming into the movie. Still, it's not a bad movie. I probably would have tacked on another star had they gotten the careers right! The casting was actually really good, and the acting was, well, good enough for the storyline. Anyway, it was definitely worth my 5 bucks. This was a made for TV movie by the way, made for the Disney Channel, in its early days. It doesn't look terribly like a made for TV movie though, not like their current junior high stuff. This is from The Disney Channel's great, premium network days. Oh well. If you're a fan of Tom and Huck movies, this is still a must to have in your collection. It's still very entertaining, and there's even a small role with the King and the Duke!

On the one hand, "Element of Doubt" is an interesting thriller with good performances that keep you guessing. On the other hand, it's more distasteful than fun -- unlike Hitchcock's "Suspicion," which is obviously its inspiration.

It's certainly worth seeing -- once. But what makes subsequent viewings of mysteries enjoyable are other elements (like humor or particularly interesting performances) that compensate for the lack of surprise once you know the plot twists. Unfortunately, you won't find those extra elements here.

This is an accurate account of the famous (infamous, more likely)
Dreyfus affair, a scandal that nearly drove France to civil war at the
turn of the century. And it could have been a good movie too, if
director Ken Rusell hadn't overdone it miserably by pretending
"the whole thing was a comedy"!

The film manages to get
its facts right (a rare acomplishment for a Hollywood movie), features
an elaborate production, with fine costumes and sets (although its
'Paris' resembles London), and boasts a great cast led by Richard
Dreyfuss, who gives an above-his-usual performance as the officer
trying against all odds to save Dreyfus, while disliking him
personally for being a Jew.

Why, then, spoil it with all those
cartoonish "comic" details that serve no purpose whatsoever,
except to ruin the whole picture?: A French general, at work, dresses
as Zeus for a portrait (its painter complete with pointy moustaches
and a red beret!) later on display in his office. Another general (a
fat, grumpy, bearded lout who looks a lot like Bud Spencer, and sinks
every scene he's into) sings child-like racist songs with his junior
officers at an elegant military club that seems to accept all ranks
inside its halls, for one sees in one room the entire French army,
from maréchales to privates, getting drunk, pounding tables and
shouting at each other in their messed up uniforms. There's a War
Minister serving cake to his subordinates, a chanteuse lampooning 'La
Marsellaise' (the French applaud!), a German officer -pickelhaube and
all- dancing with a male spy in drag, and a sinister meeting inside a
church, with generals sniggering as they cross themselves. My, oh my!
Aren't these the bad guys!

Seems to me, the director tried so hard
to stress the point, he completely missed it. ....