Search
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Barbarella (1968) in Movies
Aug 10, 2020
Vaguely Memorable
An outer space agent travels to another galaxy in search of a missing inventor.
Acting: 2
Good cast, none of whom are swinging for the fences in Barbarella. Honestly, I can compare the acting chops in this movie to the likes of a softcore porn. Science fiction or not, there is absolutely nothing believable about this movie in the slightest. The acting made the rest of the movie hard to watch.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Despite the terrible acting, I didn’t hate the characters, namely the woman of the hour Barbarella (Jane Fonda). She’s quirky and I loved all of her inuendo references to sex. The movie is very sex-oriented and it succeeds, albeit minutely, in Barbarella’s experience and everyone else’s lack thereof. If they had given the movie more of a solid story, the characters would have had a fighting chance at being a part of a solid movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Not terrible in the way of sci-fi. They tried a number of cool things that really are fairly impressive for a 1968 movie. From the weapons to the numerous space settings, I wasn’t disappointed by what was showing up on screen.
Conflict: 6
I think Barbarella cared more about being trippy than having a true conflict to drive the story. There are points where I cared about the outcome, but it seems more often than not that the movie is satisfied with being light-hearted and slowly paced. There was not enough going on for me to overly care.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 6
There are a handful of moments that stand out, but there isn’t a lot of replay value here. Even as I rewatch it as we speak, there are some spots that I forgot even happened. Definitely not a movie I need to see twice.
Pace: 5
Plot: 1
Never a good sign when I have to look the story up on Rotten Tomatoes. It was honestly that forgettable. I think the 800 screenwriters on this movie cared more about being funny than they did writing a good movie. Not impressed.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 61
I wanted to like Barbarella, but they gave me nothing to work with unfortunately. I wouldn’t even advise the Amazon Prime users (where the movie is available) to give it a shot. Steer clear.
Acting: 2
Good cast, none of whom are swinging for the fences in Barbarella. Honestly, I can compare the acting chops in this movie to the likes of a softcore porn. Science fiction or not, there is absolutely nothing believable about this movie in the slightest. The acting made the rest of the movie hard to watch.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Despite the terrible acting, I didn’t hate the characters, namely the woman of the hour Barbarella (Jane Fonda). She’s quirky and I loved all of her inuendo references to sex. The movie is very sex-oriented and it succeeds, albeit minutely, in Barbarella’s experience and everyone else’s lack thereof. If they had given the movie more of a solid story, the characters would have had a fighting chance at being a part of a solid movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Not terrible in the way of sci-fi. They tried a number of cool things that really are fairly impressive for a 1968 movie. From the weapons to the numerous space settings, I wasn’t disappointed by what was showing up on screen.
Conflict: 6
I think Barbarella cared more about being trippy than having a true conflict to drive the story. There are points where I cared about the outcome, but it seems more often than not that the movie is satisfied with being light-hearted and slowly paced. There was not enough going on for me to overly care.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 6
There are a handful of moments that stand out, but there isn’t a lot of replay value here. Even as I rewatch it as we speak, there are some spots that I forgot even happened. Definitely not a movie I need to see twice.
Pace: 5
Plot: 1
Never a good sign when I have to look the story up on Rotten Tomatoes. It was honestly that forgettable. I think the 800 screenwriters on this movie cared more about being funny than they did writing a good movie. Not impressed.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 61
I wanted to like Barbarella, but they gave me nothing to work with unfortunately. I wouldn’t even advise the Amazon Prime users (where the movie is available) to give it a shot. Steer clear.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Book Club (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A book club without a spine.
Let’s be clear before we start; I am NOT in the demographic that this film is aimed at. And judging from the general reactions of the cinema audience I shared this with – 90%+ of who were women aged over 50 – my views are NOT going to necessarily reflect the general view, since there seemed to be quite a few satisfied customers in the audience. But my personal view would be, if you’re going to make a light-hearted comedy aimed at the lucrative silver pound, then at least make it a good one. For this – for me – felt like 50 shades of lame.
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).