The Night of the Iguana (1964)

I don't much like Tennessee Williams - I think he must have been quite unloved as a child. All of his characters are either desperately unhappy, horribly despicable, or both. Exception (of those I've seen) is Streetcar Named Desire – I like that one.

That said, Night of the Iguana is second to Streetcar in the TW adaptations I've seen. It didn't make me miserable; I watched it all in one sitting. Ava Gardner impressed me with her range...from rough businesswoman to the wounded face of supposed rejection. The speeches – as always with TW were too long and not near as revelatory as I'm sure he thought. One quote, however, really stood out and I thought it was beautiful. Deborah Kerr said of what most would find nasty or, at the least, aberrant behavior, something along the lines of "Nothing human disgusts me. Unless it's unkind. Or violent." I think I'll adopt that as my mantra.

C+

Chariots of Fire (1981)

I had a bit of trouble for the first half-hour telling everyone apart and thought that Abraham's roommate was Liddell...totally wrong. I didn't put together that Liddell didn't attend Cambridge until rather late in the show – something about the bland faces and the blondeness of everyone except Abraham both bored and confused me. I also didn't like the way that remembered thoughts echoed aloud at turning points throughout the film. I found it a bit insulting, as though the director didn't trust us to remember key conversations. If he truly wanted to be helpful, he should have given us audible clues whenever a character came on screen, like "ah, yes, good ol' Lindsey...although he's a spoiled rich kid, we can't help but like him for his good humor and for being a fellow Cambridge man." The weird thing is, I'm not even sure my sarcastic explanation is accurate! After spending hours with these fellows, I still can’t tell them apart.

B

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

I'm a sucker for Clark Gable, but I'm sure I'd like this film regardless.

B+

The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle (2000)

Some gags didn't work - just like the source material! In all, likable and silly, but it coulda been better. Good to hear the George of the Jungle narrator serve as narrator here. They probably should have stolen some of the writers from that movie, too.

If you don't have kids, just put the box down and back away...

C

The Leading Man (1998)

Although I really like Jon Bon, he didn't seem quite up to the task of carrying a movie. He always looked as though he was saying "now watch this…this part's pretty awesome." That said, I love this kind of twisty stuff and I genuinely liked all the principals, especially the wife.

B+

Grand Illusion (1938)

It's the last third of this film that elevates it a rank of excellence. The escape and sacrifice and yearning therein made me forget that for the first third I was confused about who was who most of the time. I'm still not sure exactly what was going on politically – I can blame my horrible knowledge of history for that – but it works on the human level.

B+

Guinevere (1999)

I went back and forth on how I felt during this movie. Ultimately, I found that I understood both Connie (the older man) and Harper (Guinevere). Of course she'd be flattered and feel lucky to have been "chosen" by this man. And I don't think he was a nasty old man, but instead fancied himself a great teacher, uniquely qualified to help the helpless. The ending was not a good idea, especially the "vision of death" conjured by Harper. But, boy, Jean Smart shoulda been nominated as a supporting actress that year. She was heartbreakingly good -- fierce and lonely.

C

Mallrats (1995)

This is just basically an homage to all the crappy movies of the early '80s (like "Moving Violations"). My big question is...do those films really deserve an homage? Humorous at times, but really no reason for it.

Claire Forlani & Jeremy London are horrid comedic actors, but Jason Mewes (Jay) killed me.

D+

Rollerball (1975)

Uh…yeah. We have this extreme sport to show that no one's better than anyone and because we don't have wars, books, or true pleasure any more. I'm pretty sure that the premise makes no sense and that what we're supposed to learn is that no matter how much the world changes, rich old white men will still have the power and young strapping white men will have the adoration. Or am I missing the point here?

D

Clockwatchers (1997)

Don't know why I thought this would be a silly comedy – it’s not. There's a mood to it that I expect to remember for some time. While watching, I was reminded me of my office jobs and why it feels so good to be free of them – and how sad I am for those still stuck in cubicles.

Also works as a biting commentary on the shallowness of work "friendships."

B

Inside Daisy Clover (1965)

Alright, who thought it was a good idea to cast the almost 30-year-old Wood as a tomboy startlet not yet 16? The best thing about the film was Roddy McDowall – and that's only because he seemed to have the same disdain for everyone on the screen that I did.

D

The Great Waltz (1938)

Basically an excuse to showcase Strauss' music and Miliza Korjus' voice. Too bad I'm indifferent to the music and dramatically opposed to the voice.

C

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932)

Quite a bit more disturbing than I expected from an early movie. The scenes with Miriam Hopkins are downright terrifying. Biggest problem is Hyde's teeth – more funny than scary – and I rather doubt that's the effect the make-up team was going for.

B

Murder on the Orient Express (1974)

You just gotta feel sorry for Albert Finney - there he is trying so hard to be a finicky and cute Poirot and audiences say, "well, I guess that's pretty good." Then in 1989, along comes David Suchet in the television Poirot series and it's quite clear to all how silly the Finney interpretation is. Ah well, poor Al.

As for the rest of this buffet of walk-ons, the intro with the clippings of the Armstrong case was mesmerizing and got my hopes up high. Way TOO high, it turns out. The remainder of the film was just plain formulaic. Since I haven't read the Christie novel, I have no idea whose fault that is: Christie’s or the filmmaker’s. Well, actually, I believe that the filmmaker is always at fault, even if the source material itself is as predictable as a Roadrunner cartoon. I mean, who forced them to FILM it?

C-

Dinner with Friends (2001)

After an excruciating first half-hour (mostly because of the incompetence of Andie MacDowell) it actually wound up being poignant. I sure do like Dennis Quaid & Greg Kinnear, although I noticed that in the scenes between Dennis and Andie, he actually seemed to "stoop" to her level of acting. I wonder if that was some kind of subconscious acting sleight of hand to trick us viewers into thinking she's as good as he is? Hmmm.... something to ponder.

B-

Diner (1982)

I hate this self-absorbed boring group of guys. The only one mildly likable is Boogie (Rourke) and he's still crappy. And why did they "hide" the face of Elyse (Eddie's fiancee)? What a stupid device when we don't care about her at all. Anyone who'd agree to take a football trivia test so that her asshole fiancée will consider her worthy of marriage has got to be more desperate than can be considered reasonable.

D+