A year in movies - 2016

SUMMARY: Based on a novel and subsequent stage play by Agatha Christie; ten people are invited to an isolated island, only to be killed one-by-one. Could one of them be the killer?
WHY I CHOSE IT: Agatha Christie!
MY COMMENT: Very good movie. The plot is of course ingenious, the actors are top class and the pacing is more than decent. No big flaws to talk about. I even like the semi happy ending!

SUMMARY:
WHY I CHOSE IT: Deborah Kerr - my favorite, but also I wanted to see more of Clarkie boy!
MY COMMENT: This could have been a great movie, but it comes of as an okay one. You can see that the story was watered down as to it's original format in a novel - and this takes the bite out of it. Performances are mostly good, some outstanding, despite the fact that I find Deborah to be wasted in a non-consequential role.

SUMMARY:
WHY I CHOSE IT: Humphrey Bogart, I guess
MY COMMENT: Interesting movie. While not top class, I loed the main charactedr, Dr. Clitterhouse, such an unusual gangster film lead! Too many cliches to be a true gem, but still nothing really wrong with it.

SUMMARY:
WHY I CHOSE IT: Suzy Parker - such a beautiful woman, and Cary was also a plus factor.
MY COMMENT: Auf, what a waste! While the movie could have been a charming, sophisticated comedy, ti turned into a bubbling mess of a half baked story, some bad acting (sorry to say Suzy is not a good actress), and several out of place characters. No, it's not a bottom of the barrel movie, but considering the talent involved in it, dismal. Not recommended.

SUMMARY:
WHY I CHOSE IT: I wante dto watch everything with Hedy Lamarr - so here it is!
MY COMMENT: Meh. Mediocre musical. Fine enough to watch once, but not twice. Nothing is terribly out of place but nothing is especially good. Bob Walker is charming, June Allyson I dislike anyway, Hedy is okay.

SUMMARY:
WHY I CHOSE IT: I want to watch all movies with Greer Garson.
MY COMMENT: Not that bad, but it takes itself too seriously to work as a proper movie. If only it had more levity, I would have liked ti better. Greer is charming as always - Joan is so so, and Bob Taylor is decent enough.

SUMMARY:
WHY I CHOSE IT: The clothes!
MY COMMENT: Melodrama just went a notch up. Sirk know how to control the material but the material is just not good enough. I find Bacall to be very much miscast - they needed somebody like Olivia de Havilland for this role. Hudson is a bland rock, Stack actually has some good moments, and Dorothy Malone, despite being a bit over the top, is mesmerizing! The story is below par, but the cinematography, set and dress design are very good!

SUMMARY:
WHY I CHOSE IT: Can't remember right now, but I guess Audrey Totter
MY COMMENT: A movie that is easily forgotten and that says it all. Far from a total waste but simply it doesn't cut out to be better than hundreds of other film noirs. Has some good moments, especially with the main character's mental state. Everybody does a good job - the director, Bob, Herbert Marshall as the baddie. Only I find Audrey Totter a total bore and wish she could have done better.

SUMMARY: Helen Gurley Brown's self-help best-seller was the nominal source for this Hollywood sex romp, directed by Richard Quine, co-scripted by Joseph Heller and David R. Schwartz, and starring Tony Curtis and Natalie Wood. Tony Curtis plays Bob Weston, a writer for a scandal magazine who is working on an article on research psychologist Helen Gurley Brown (Natalie Wood) and her best-selling book Sex and the Single Girl. Bob needs to interview Helen, but she refuses to see him. Bob impersonates one of her neighbors, Frank Broderick (Henry Fonda), as a ruse in order to see her on the pretext of marital counseling. After several meetings, Bob attempts to seduce her, but she resists; then he phones her and claims he's about to commit suicide by jumping off a local pier. Horrified, she rushes out to save him, but the two accidentally fall off the pier together and then head back to Helen's apartment to dry out. Bob plies Helen with martinis. Rip-roaring drunk, Helen confesses her love for Bob. He assures her it's fine, since he's not legally married, but Helen doesn't believe him and asks to meet his wife, Sylvia (Lauren Bacall). This leads to an endless series of complications, capped off by a wild chase to the Los Angeles airport.
WHY I CHOSE IT: Natalie Wood, want to watch more of her movies.
MY COMMENT: Has some funny moments, but I liked this film more for the nostalgic 1960s feeling and dressed than for anything of any deeper value. Natalie and Tony Curtis have goo chemistry, and that is more or less enough for this kind of a movie to work.

SUMMARY: Fashion photographer Dick Avery, in search for an intellectual backdrop for an air-headed model, expropriates a Greenwich Village bookstore
WHY I CHOSE IT: Audrey Hepburn of course! And Astaire is not for burning either.
MY COMMENT: Nice, breezy, charming, everything you would want from a musical - everything done right!

Summary
Why I chose it: Natalie Wood
My comment I still think it's better than most of the reviewers peg it. it's not high art, but it's fun and flirty and Natalie Wood is good in comedic roles, something not everybody agree upon. Peter Falk is hus usual wcky detective, and Ian Bannen was a surprise, I kind him a lot! C'mon, this is not a bad movie, it's entertaining and just what a silly comedy needs to be.

Summary
Why I chose it: natalie Wood
My comment Works on most levels but not all. The story doesn't flow easily enough, Natalie's character becomes unimportant halfway into the movie, Nina Foch's role is too diminutive, but it does raise some interesting questions about ethics of business and James Gardner is just what Cash McCall needs to be, IMHO. and Dean Jagger is tops as usual.

Summary
Why I chose it Have no idea!
My comment Fun, fun, fun! Really fun! The leads are top class and play their roles impeccably. i' no Doris Day fan but she was endearing as they come! The story, while far fetched, is a romp and the direction and pacing are really good. REC!

Summary
Why I chose it The summary seemed interesting enough. Opposites attract, always a good plot!
My commentI really liked this movie. Great political movie, with some good ethical questions mixed in, and with top notch performances from the leads. Jill Clayburgh was a true revelation!! Love her! All in all, a classic!

Summary
Why I chose it: Hedy Lamarr! She was so enchanting!
My comment A so so movie. Not that bad but nothing to write home about. Has some good moments and it's a above average effort for George Brent, but could have been better.

Summary
Why I chose it Watched it with some friends, they chose it.
My comment Now this is one great movie! Atmosphere, the story, the actors.. Top line! One of the most gripping yet most realistic horrors of the last decade! Incredible!

Summary
Why I chose it
My comment: James Coburn is as cool as always, but that's hardly enough to save this movie - it's a standard murder mystery, just with a doctor instead of a detective. Nothing to shout about. I also like Jennifer O'Neil despite the fact that she was a very lackluster actress, but so pretty and interesting!

Summary
Why I chose it
My comment: It's a below average Sherlock Holmes mystery. Very little Sherlockian feeling. Of all the characters, I only found Donald Sutherland interesting, and still have no idea why he was in the movie at all - he's a totally expendable as far as the narrative is concerned. Nothing to recommend it!

Summary
Why I chose it
My comment: Top of the line movie, difficult but stunning. Very deep, hard hitting, not easy to watch but that's artistically cinema for you. Terence Stamp is wonderful!

Summary
Why I chose it
My comment. Fun. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Good enough got Marvel for sure.

VERDICT: Very good movie. Queer and relevant story, touching and emotional where it needs to be, with a great cast and solid production values, this movie is a subtle winner!
WHY I HOSE IT. A cult classic, those movies are mostly worth watcing.
REC OR NOT. Oh yes! if you want to experiment a bit, definitely!

VERDITC: I really have no idea why the movie gets such a bad rap. Perhaps it's the very slippery theme? Yes, child secual abuse is rarely mentoned in movies, and tackling it like this is not something you see often. However, it maybe becouse they made a more breezy film than usual of it. They don't demonize the sexual abuse nor make a hard hitting, heavy movie, but a middle of the road drama, just with a seriosu undertone. Perhaps this mixture didn't go down so well with most people. I dont' know, I likes the movie a great deal. The actor, unknown to me, were quite good, and erotic scenes are very nicely done.
WHY I CHOSE IT. I like high art erotic movies with a sensual side.
REC OR NOT. OH yes! We need more movies like this!

VERDICT: Nice movie, and I have no say a bit of a dissapintment, but I know it's purely for reasons of personal taste. I'm not that big of a fan of making it in America movies, and that why this one would never get a high grade out of me. But it is well made, and quite realistic.
WHY I CHOSE IT: Ciema watching.
REC OR NOT: Yes. There is noting really bad about the movie, if you like slow moving, low key dramas, this is a grat choice.

VERDICT: A classic for more reasons than one, and a suspenseful, tightly made movie. Great acting performances by Stamp and Samantha Eggar.
WHY I CHOSE IT. Terry STamp! Love him!
REC OR NOT. Yes. Good movie!

VERDICT: Funny ta moments but overall a typical Bob Hope, forgettable and lukewarm. Al tough I find his humor quite good, most of Hope's films are comedies you literary forget the moment you see them.
WHY I CHOSE IT:
REC OR NOT. Ah, not really. Didn't leave na impression that is for sure.

VEDIT: Let me say that my personal fave part of the movie is Lambert Wilson. He is gold in his role! Otherwise, the movie is good - intimate, small in scale and personal. Olga Kurylenko surprised me , and the tragic Anton Yelcin is really likeable.
WHY I CHOSE IT:
REC OR NOT: Yes. A good romcom with a atypical

REC OR NOT: Yes! Klute is a teasure tow with loads and loads of subtext to absorb. Although in todays world of countless detective TV shows these type of movies have to have that something extra to make it, Klut ereally has it, with a probe into women's psychology and a major societal problems of the 20th century. REc for sure!

REC OR NOT: Yes! While I still prefer the old version, this one is more poetic and visually more stunning. The somber, mlacholic mood is wonderful and the perofmences are uniforly good.

REC OR NOT: Oh yeah! Really liked this movie. If you want to see something out of the box with an ordinary but still extraordinary protagonist swimming in morally grey waters, this is your movie. GOuld is tops and Plummer equally as good.

VERDICT: Bad. Just bad. Nice music thought.

VERDICT: Horrible, pretty bad. Just bad. Hollywood trash.

VERDICT: This one is more interesting than you can think at first glance. Truly a woman's movie, while it's still watered down and simplified, it's powerful and strikes cords that Hollywood liked to skip. All three performances are great - Patricia, Eleanor and Ruth are all wonderful actresses and I enjoyed them a lot. Sadly, due to the code there is not enough bite, and the movie isn't that dynamic and gripping, but good nontheless.

MY COMMENT: Meh movie. No too shabby, but not anything worth mentioning. Classic Hollwood knew hwo to do such nice romantic comedies with good actors so this one is just one of the many. The only redeeming feature is Jean Pierre Aumont -č the guy is a charmer nd he knows it! I would watch the movie just for him again.

MY COMMENT: A good movie, but definitely did not live up to the intense hype. I would never give it a top movie mark, although it is very good. However, I dislike Jeanne Crain and find her the weakest link in the movie. The others actors are just fine. Paul Douglas and Linda Darnell are my favorites - what a great, unusual Hollywood combo!