One Minute Bad Reviews

That is to say these are all reviews of bad films rather than bad reviews. Maybe they're both. And of course when I say they are bad films, what I really mean is that they are alleged masterpieces or at least quite highly regarded. I just didn't like them...

The Seven Samurai

It is no secret that I can't stand the pained expressions and histrionics of the style of acting that characterised Japanese cinema in and around the 1950s. Actors of the era performed with the idea of emulating the Noh form of theatre where actors wore masks. Their facial expressions are designed to appear mask-like but it just ruins the film for me and this is one of the worst examples. I tried watching this before but gave up after 20 minutes. This time I stuck with it but didn't particularly enjoy it. I really don't see the hallmarks of a masterpiece here. It is needlessly long - scenes are painfully extended with the director cutting to face after face to see the same sort of reaction. There's one quite elderly guy (possibly Yohei) who looks like he's about to cry every single time he's on screen and it is infuriating. Not my cup of sake at all. D

Radio Days

I've been on a Woody Allen role of late with Hannah and her Sisters, and The Purple Rose of Cairo cracking the A+ barrier and Zelig and Broadway Danny Rose also faring very well. This however didn't do it for me. There are a couple of wry observations in Allen's semi-autobiographical look at the end of the golden era of radio, but it doesn't have the engrossing characters or plot nor is it consistently funny enough to hold one's interest. C

The Ladykillers

This is the British comedy of 1955 that was remade by the Coens a few years ago to little success. Judging by the original though they were hampered by the source material. A gang of would be crooks plan a bank raid from the home of an old woman who they lodge with, pretending to be classical musicians. It's not very funny, it's not very well acted (yes even Alec Guinness and Peter Sellers can be off their game) and it's so low budget that consecutive shots in the same scene look as though they were filmed in different seasons. One minute it's brilliant sunshine, then we cut to a reaction shot and it appears overcast. All the interior shots are appallingly lit and the whole thing just doesn't hold together very well, with scenes badly strung together, badly edited and even the simplest of action sequences having no coherence. D

The Grapes of Wrath

Another alleged masterpiece another bad grade from me. Maybe I'm just not in a very charitable mood of late, I guess after such a spectacular year in the cinema my expectations are sky high. This though doesn't come close to its Best Picture nominated billing. John Ford won Best Director ahead of Alfred Hitchcock, whose Rebecca won Best Picture and must have directed itself. This was in the days of Picture/Director splits being very rare. Hitchcock never won an Oscar despite deserving at least 3 and the decision to reward Ford here was a strange one. The film doesn't hold up well although I suppose at the time, a young Henry Fonda starring in a very American epic (an adaptation of a pulitzer prize winning Steinbeck novel no less) was the sort of thing that went down well. They should have gone with the Brit though since his film was far more accomplished and the direction in Rebecca is exemplary. The Grapes of Wrath just did not hold my interest at all. Maybe the novel works better. D