Leonardo Artist

Reviews and other content aren't verified by Google

I hadn't seen it in many years and just had to give up after one (painful) hour. As a writer/actor/director and a Brooklyn-Italian American I was so insulted and disappointed in what I'm not calling, John Houston's worst film. Additionally, I didn't believe one single second of the story. NONE of it would have/could have ever happened as written. Nicholson's Brooklyn dialect was not only terrible but an insult to all Brooklynites and all Italian Americans. This is what happens when someone from Missouri makes a film about New Yorkers. Only (bad) characters in bad films ever spoke the way Nicholson does in this film. every time he opened his mouth my blood boiled. But worse, was Angelica Houston. Her dialect and mannerism was as fake as a seven-dollar bill. In the scene when she tells her father that "Charlie" forced himself on her-I almost kicked my TV screen. That was the final straw. But before that, we have to endure more-typical Holywood "love stories:' Characters meet, thirty seconds later they are in love, three minutes they're married. How are we supposed to believe that Nicholson and Turner's characters would marry? She's a con artist, a liar and a "hit woman" who screwed over "The Family." "Charlie" would have killed her when he discovered her in the LA house. NOTHING is believable in this story. And let me say, for all these years I remembered Angelica's line about "doing it on the rug." It was one of my favorite. Henceforth, I'll never say it and I will remove it from my memory. It pains me to hear her (an djack) speak in this crappy film.

SO bad. The script, the acting and directing are terrible. Sorry but this screamed "AMATURE." Not a good first job for Anna Kendrick. And why is a film about a serial killer called, "Woman of the Hour?" A much better title would have been, "Bachelor Number Three"-as it's about the killer-not some wanna be-failed actress. Her character like the others is boring and not worth our time. And what's up with the non-stop "hesitation" by every actor whil edelievrin gthei rlines? Does Kendrick that that's a good acting "technique? And of course, as a contemporary writer, the yhad to throw in 450 unnecessary "Fu*ks." Better luck next time Kendrick (or maybe, just stick to acting-in other people's films?)

You'd think that by this time in his life, Tom Hanks could smell a bad script from a mile away...apparently he cannot. This script smells like dog poo from 20 miles away. He does a pretty job-with what he has but that about it. I've never seen Emma Watson in any films before but was under the impression she was a good ator. Holy crapo am I wrong! She's Terrible; She a "face actor." Every shot of her she was working so hard to tell "her emotions" via her (unnaturally small) face. As far as the story; the premise is interesting but the application of it as a story-this story in this film is a joke. One o fmy big pet peeves in film is "believability' and there is ZERO believability in this film. I struggled through the first hour then couldn't take any more. There is truly nothing good or worth watching....Do not bother...and Mr. Hanks, shame on you.

As someone who has experience behind and in front of cameras (which includes working with Julia Roberts) , a self-proclaimed cinephile and a Long Islander I have to say; this film is Terrible. It completely and inaccurately misrepresents Long island. It's script is boring and amateur. The acting is like watching a bunch of fourth-graders. The worst, by far, is the girl who plays the homeowner's daughter. Her and her dialogue are not only terrible, they/she is SO annoying. Not to mention, she looks like an advertisement for prison tattoos. From the opening seconds I had a problem with this film; I didn't believe Julia Roberts or anything she said. Nothing worked. I found myself challenging almost every actions, including the ship crashing into the shore. It was like a jigsaw puzzle with no matching pieces. And there was no (discernable) purpose/reason for the homeowner and his daughter to be at the house?? Their presence there did absolutely nothing to further the story. and, could they have made Ethan Hawke's character look more foolish and incompetent?...more of the American trend of making white-males look incapable. And! Let's show the audience a gun-which is never used in any way, shape or form. There is truly not one minute worthy of watching in this film...The biggest- take away questions: Who said "Yes, I'll put up money for this film." And how did they get big-time actors to agree to do this-garbage?

Usually not my kind of film. And as I'm such a hyper critic on all art, best especially film, I tend to find eighty percent of what Netflix has on store to be rather bad. This however kept my interest and unlike 80 percent of every other film/TV show these days, this didn't inundate me/theadience with 700 "Fuc&kd: However My favorite element of the entire film were the aliases the killer used; It was brilliant choice-using '70's TV show characters. And not only were they used but unlike all other films/TV shows whio employ such tacxits,The director/actor didn't shove the referesces down our throat. It. was done the way I like to introduce/"slip" in things for those with good eyes and a modicum of film/TV/music/ history ,as a way of saying, :"This beer is for you. Thanks for getting it". What I hate is when filmmakers SHOVE Anything) references down audience's throat; Sorry but, you are too stupid to understand the upcoming reference Joke, so we'll explain the reference and tell youwho Felix Unger is.

BORING. I'm a BIG Elvis fan, a Sophia fan and a BIG Coppola fan but sadly I have to report, I found everything about this film DULL. There's maybe thirty seconds of Elvis music. The actor playing Elvis didn't look much like him and sure didn't sound like the King. The film was nothing but a series of the same set of shots; 1 Pricilla solo, 2 Pricilla & Elvis 3 Pricilla, Elvis &the Boys. It's a bad-cheap-amateur song with the same (boring-basic) three cord progression repeated over and over and over and over and.... The dialogue was boring and repetitive; "Baby I love you"... "I want to go with you Elvis"..... That's pretty much the entire script. And let's talk about the recent cinematic technique of drastically under lighting interior scenes. Yes we known Elvis like "it dark," but every single scene (even in Pricilla's family house) was -under lit. No one's homes are lit like that in reality. And, at times Elvis' words were to soft/low-they just faded into the darkness surrounding him. This ain't one for the record oboks kids.

Clint, Clint, Clint! What have done-you once-Great Master of in front and behind the camera? Cliché, Cliché, and Cliché. Did I mention " Cliché?" Additionally, Mr. Eastwood apparently never brought this eye glasses or hearing aids to the set. With few exceptions, the acting was top-notch-for a high school production. For a Hollywood film-Bad. One of the worse acting moments is when "Frankie" picks up and throws a glass-beverage at a wall-smashing it-after his mistress leaves him. The best acting in that scene was the glass busting into a hundred pieces. The Hard-core "Italian-tuff guy" played by Vincent Piazza was dripping with "I'm trying hard to channel De Niro & Liotta." It was too friggin much. The arguing scenes with Frankie's wife were so typical and cliché that I had to fast forward through them. The scenes with Frankie and his Run-away daughter was like watching children try to read and explain Plato-poorly done. The only reason to watch this film is to hear some pretty good "covers" of some great-classic music and get the back story on Frankie and the boys.

Yes, the effects were impressive when it was made but that's about all. The story is very weak and the script is-especially the dialogue is beyond horrible and elementary. Not only is the overall dialogue terrible, but the only female, Rachele Welsh's dialogue seems to have been written by a man whose never met a female in his entire life. I'm far from being a feminist, but this film is a disgrace and totally disrespectful to women. Welsh's character is nothing but a pretty nurse capable of only asking questions and uttering monosyllabic responses-if not single words. And, like everyone else, her lines are insulting to viewers (even in 1966). Pay attention to how often there's silence-as the characters just look around-as they're embarking on an AMAZING-never-done-before human feat. It's truly a Fantastic voyage yet none asked a single question: about the shrinking procedure, or what to expect... They have no dialogue not because they're amazed at their surroundings, but because the (bad) writers simply had no idea what to write-for them. The guy hired for "security" initially says he doesn't want to go, but willingly does after a five minute meeting in which there was no discussion about what effects the shrinking has on humans or anything else any human would have asked under similar circumstance. He simply smiles and goes to the "sterilization" chamber. Putting the SFXs aside, I give it (at best) two stars.