Not a 2009 movie but a early 1900's bad!
599039
This movie I for nations was misleading. It said 2009 on the Amazon movie info but in reality it is and early 1900's. I only watch the first 10 minutes and started to fall sleep and discontinued watching. I should get reimbursed for the cost
4202029
First of all let's be clear on a couple of things:number 1 I don't hate this movie 'cause it's what some may refer to as a "Chick Flick"(true I am a man but I don't even believe in the term "Chick Flick" anyway. And second I love Scarlett for her beauty,grace,sex appeal,(and let's face it she's one of the few actresses lately who's more than just a "pretty face"). Now that being said the problem is that not only does this reprehensible piece of sh** TOTALLY SUCK but on top of that it's the worst movie she's been in since A Love Song For Bobby Long! I mean for starters there's that really corny opening using museum exhibits as completely confusing metaphors! Also there's that B.S. with her starting out referring most everybody by aliases to begin with(ie Mr. and Mrs. X and Harvard Hottie! How moronic is that!) And then at the end when you realize you don't even care anymore you find out the said characters "real names"! Next the only character who's name you do get to know about right away is the kid's! And then of all the stupidest names they could give him his name is Grayer! What the f*** kind of a name is that! Grayer than what a cloudy sky, an old lady's hair,WHAT! HA HA LOL! Anyway the script was pure Dogsh** and the scene where Scarlett Johanssen and Alicia Keys are singing along with George Michael's Freedom was sheer embarrassment! Especially since a)I hate George Michael and b) When Scarlett was standing up while the car was moving and dancing while wearing sunglasses she looked ridiculous! Oh and that scene in some bar where all these guys are criticizing her for being a nanny she spouting one h*** of a corny line afterwards! And I hate Laura Linney and the fact that Alicia Keys had very little part in it! In summation if you want to see Scarlett Johanssen in a good movie watch Ghost World or Lost in Translation and skip this waste of time!
2925664
The movie is to old fashioned for me. This is so called horror that we were scared of back in the 60's and 70s. I wouldn't recommend that you waste your time unless this is what you like.
58149
I picked this movie because it looked lonely out there in Amazon Instant Watch land and it was.... well, not really worth it.  Generally I try to keep my reviews balanced but I can't really do that.  I'm just going to spew bullet points.

* This one is old enough that it's the old black and white, silent, flickering barely-there video.  Delightful!

* The music, which is generally piano music in this era, has been replaced by some sort of vague electronica.  I don't know for SURE but I cannot imagine this is contemporary.  It repeats endlessly for about the first ten minutes, then it goes to piano in the middle of a scene and then back to the same repeating electronica.  It's almost as if they've lost some of the original audio?

* There's a narrator... she reads the cards, often incorrectly in this rather chipper feminine voice that doesn't really match the tone of the movie.

* Oliver Hardy (you know, of Laurel and Hardy) is in here as the Tin Man (woodsman).  He's almost recognizable.

* Quite a few racist bits; the one that stands out is a young African American boy sitting in a watermelon patch eating an entire quarter of a watermelon.

* Surprisingly slapstick.  This one has very little to do with the plot as we know it.  You know the sort of stuff I'm talking about: a guy gets kicked in the rear by a mule, he flies impossibly high into the air and lands in a cactus patch.  (I'm not making this up, actual scene from the movie).

In summary, if not for the music and narrator I would have considered this a grand example of the silent cinema.  My mind is utterly boggled.
427292
I enjoy movies from this era but this one was just not that entertaining.  If we assume it is some what historicly accurate then it is the only redeaming quality.

The acting was poor and the story telling uninteresting.  The best part was the documetary after the movie ended.
4252258
We started to watch the Napoleon movie about Waterloo that I bought for Christmas, the one filmed in 1970 by some Russian director. Unfortunately I think it is horrible as a film. We can barely continue to watch it, and we have gotten to the beginning of the actual battle. What did you like about it? The only good point I can see is Orson Welles at Louis XVIII, and that is a small part with hardly any lines. The American actor playing Napoleon,  Rod Steiger, is totally inappropriate. His version seems over the top with Napoleon as some half crazy, emotionally unstable weirdo.  I'm shocked that Christopher Plummer as Wellington isn't doing much better for different reasons. His portrayal is very flat. It is probably the script which lacks forward drive and action. The pacing is way too slow. Also there is no point of view character, which makes battle scenes in particular hard to manage. Contrast it for instance with Gone with the Wind where most everything is from Scarlett's point of view. You may not see much of the battle scenes but  you feel their impact because you take them in from her point of view and they become part of the forward thrust of the action.
3530982
My first copy of this DVD skipped & stuck in several places. I have ordered a 2nd copy to see if it plays properly. Warner Archives DVDR format usually plays great but this one sucks! Watching this movie I was flabbergasted by the inaccuracies in the film. Audrey Williams had a big hand in this film & how she & Hank were portrayed. 1. Audrey DID NOT have a traveling band when she met Hank Sr. 2. The film makes no mention of the fact that the two were divorced when Hank Sr died on New Years Eve 1952. 3. The Song Hank Sr sang at his Grand Ol' Opry debut in 1949 was "Lovesick Blues", which is not even performed or mentioned in the film. Audrey was not the best of singers but her duets with Hank Sr were listenable, none of those are performed in the film. I could go on & on but this is a decent fictional film, I gave it a poor rating because DVD worked improperly. The one saving grace is that a 14 year old Hank Williams Jr performs the songs of his father. The arrangements of the songs are of a 1960's Nashville Sound & not of the gutbucket hillbilly sound of the Great Hank Williams Sr. The movie is entertaining in a hokey way....The actors do a decent job, especially Susan Oliver as Audrey Williams....
2746112
The story as stated by Mircha, the romanian student of eastern philosophy  back in 1930s about his relationship with the daughter of his professor, is  the main content of the novel "La Nuit Bengali". The movie tried  to move the story to a modern time, and in that process did a horrific  distortion of everything including the local culture and customs, the  mindset of a modern Bengali girl, and the parental control exercised by  learned parents!
The cinematography is quite bad, given that it was  filmed only in 1980s when the cinematography has been improved 100 folds  from 1930s. If the time frame of the movie was in 1930s, then that kind of  cinematography could have been acceptable, probably, just for the sake of  the time frame matching!
The local language spoken by the actors were  terrible, the producers should have found a better solution to this. The  leading actresses were not Bengali, and it was an English film, so there  was no reason to put Bengali dialogue for them, but the director did, and  due to lack of efficient directorial supervision, they came out horrible  and wrong.
The film also shows the lack of imagination and research in  the comtemporary Bengali psyche and mentality and behaviour. If the story  had been set in 1930s, the incidents following the discovery by the parents  about the relationship of their daughter with the foreigner could have been  believable, but in the current context, it has been completely ridiculous,  and stupid and it has become a caricature rather than a film.
The music  was also pretty bad, the set and choice of location has been quite  horrible. The director should have seen some of Satyajit Ray films before  even venturing into this kind of a project.
2704764
F*this and F*that not quite correct for a western movie that took place in 1880. A couple of laughs but not much. I can see why it didn't last long on the big screen.  Don't waste your money wait until it is free then you won't feel bad when you shut it off in the middle of the movie.
4605917
I rented this movie because it falls under the genres of "romance" and "western" with some Grand Canyon scenery thrown in.  But if you're expecting a typical wholesome romantic western, forget it. This movie is pure trash! The romance is between a YOUNG GIRL who has not even gone through puberty and a MIDDLE-AGED MAN! The child is also lusted after by other leering men. It's sickening.

Peter Fonda is portrayed as being virtuous by trying to resist his attraction to Brooke Shields, and her character is mostly the one that pursues the relationship. He tries to shoo her away at first but eventually he gives in and they drive off as a happy, loving couple. It's revolting.

I don't see how this movie could appeal to anyone except pedophiles.
2773324
Anyone who gives this movie more then a 2 star is higher then a kite!
IT WAS HORRIBLE! The plot was transparent, after watching it for 5 minutes I wanted to beat the 2 guys up they were talking so badly! The movie was bad, just plain BAD. If thye had better actors, I mean if they were better looking, nicer, and well not trying to push each others buttons all the time well it might have turned out differently. The wolves? Well they aren't even supernatural, there is no one helping them so HOW IN THE WORLD did they take a chunk out of a car wiring? Where did the womans backpack go? The wolves would need to have hands and thumbs in order to take out the wires (they looked cut!).
The set itself was awesome, wonderful detail, BUT it looked like it had only been there for a 40 or 50 years not falling down if you touch it kinda old (they were tramping thorough a saloon, walking up and down the stairs balancing on an OLD looking barrel...)
79300
This movie is not for kids in middle school or early high school  It was bad.
1807968
Movie was okay... But I guess the real shocker was the early century village was actually taking place in today's world.... Actually kinda stupid but alright film.
3719769
I'm a huge fan of Claudette Colbert and was expecting great things from this film - I last saw it in the 1970s and then had liked it. This film is described as an early example of the "crazy rich family" of the 1930s screwball comedy genre. If it is a comedy then it is a muted/ somber one, variable in its appeal  and it isn't helped by the screenplays  depictions of the  irritating /inept  members of the "Rimplegar" family,  excluding {of course}  Ms. Colbert who is  the moral center of the film.

The Rimlegar's reside in a large Brooklyn townhouse unconcerned about money until the family matriarch - {Mary Boland not so much ditzy as criminally stupid} loses all the familys money by investing in a phony mining scheme. Faced with the reality of being completely broke and saddled with an unsalable mansion {their only asset} the family now must find work and more pointedly learn to work and how to hold a job  at the very depth of the Great Depression in 1933.

The family inmates includes her 3 brothers - a wanna  -be actor {William Blakewell}, a callow college boy {Tom Brown}, a struggling law student  {Wallace Ford } and a really unpleasant, spoiled, selfish and self-centered unpublished writer {Hardie Albright} who is engaged to Claudette who spoils and mothers him like a "petulant child". She is the only sensible member of the clan {except for the fiance}  and she has to fight to keep them on course to work and earn enough money despite their grand pretensions. Does any of this sound funny?

Thank god that a sensible character makes an appearance - an attractive doctor {Richard Arlen} rents a room and falls for Claudette who improbably remains stuck on her "petulant child". The dreary screenplay takes us thru the various travails of the boys mostly failing in their undistinguished efforts to "make a buck". Some unpleasant/unfunny scenes include Tom Brown whining/crying because he is hungry, Arlen coming back from dinner and describing his meal to the family while their stomachs are rumbling and all the brothers taking Claudette to task for allowing her fianc to remain unemployed and sponge off them because he is an sensitive author devoted to his art and above sordid money making, even though he eats like a horse!!!

Gradually the brothers get their act together and make some progress in earning their keep, Claudette sees her fianc for the worthless bum that he is BUT in a priceless twist he is picked up by a rich girl who will keep him in cosseted comfort while he struggles to write his Great American Novel. And of course Arlen and Colbert will finally get together and the film ends with the family facing the future with modest hopes and expectations. Does any of this sound funny?

Ms. Colbert and Richard Arlen are an attractive couple and work well together and Hardie Albright is effectively unpleasant as the wanna -be writer.  Elliot Nugent is pedestrian in his direction and the film is stage-bound with modest production values at best.  I was very disappointed in  the film, it is definitely not a comedy let alone a screwball comedy and I give it  2 stars  not recommended.
808984
I saw this movie at home last night and I was appalled.  They took Jane Austen's simple, exciting plot, marvellous characters of the kind only Jane Austen can create, and ruined it completely.  Where was Aunt Norris' gnawing nastiness?  Sir Thomas' dignity (the movie makers made him into some kind of lecher who abused slaves in the worst way in Antigua!)?  Lady Bertram's humorous lassitude?  Fanny Price's father's embarrassing (but to us highly amusing) vulgarity?  And am I the only one who noticed the slightly lesbian tones in Mary Crawford's attentions to Fanny, especially when Fanny has to take off her wet clothes?  Good grief!

Jane Austen must be turning in her grave.

The only reason I am giving this movie one star is because of the costumes.  They are beautiful.  Everything else about the movie is appalling.
517304
oh my, where do you begin with a movie like this?  The old black and white science fiction horror movies had a certain charm, the dated cars and the kids' slang as they make out in the woods while the flying saucer lands....some of them were quite good, actually, with sensible plots and characters you could empathize with and care about.....this film has none of these attributes.  Not only is the nostalgic charm nonexistent, but the scenery is choppy, erratic, very annoying.....high school kids could put together a better movie....and the characters are such non-descript, pointless people, you just don't care. you have to see it to believe it....but this concoction of drunken editing is fun to watch.  It makes no sense.  It is so bad it has to be one of the worst films ever made.  I recommend it. I can't wait to watch it again.
3290286
This movie has not aged well. Creative concept well acted but special effects are had by today's comparison making it really dated