The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
No consensus yet.
All Critics (11)
| Top Critics (3)
| Fresh (3)
| Rotten (8)
| DVD (1)
Three-quarters of the film is just photographed stage play -- excellently photographed, but slow in action.
By its failure to blend the two poles of drama the film resolves itself into virtually two plays.
A fairly deadly case of canned theater that's pretty close to what Hitchcock many years later would refer to as 'photographs of people talking.'
It had nothing to do with cinema, Hitchcock himself had said of his adaptation of Sean O'Casey play, though it's well acted by Sara Allgood and the rest of the ensemble
Though well photographed, the action is incredibly slow for Hitchcock.
A faithful Casey adaptation, but one that's stagebound and lackluster.
Static medium shots keep the actors in full view, yet the film is as much of a visual experiment as Blackmail or Number Seventeen
Hitch gets a chance to flex his cinematic muscle with a predictably dramatic ending. Alas, it is too late to save what is essentially a theatrical experience.
This is one of Hitchcock's early efforts, and, I believe, his second "talkie". It's also a very atypical effort in that it is a human drama based on an acclaimed play concerning the trials and tribulations of an average Dublin tenemant family during Ireland's "troubles" in the early 1920s.
That it covers material different from what Hitch would later become a master at makes it kinda interesting, if only to see how he would handle things. Well, apparently this film is a close adaptation, but that doesn't mean that it really works.
In all honesty, this film is a real drag. It's boring, unengaging, and reminded me a lot (to an extent) of Angela's Ashes, only not as good and harder to sit through. It also feels far longer than it is. Sara Allgood gives a decent performance, and holds everything together, but everyone else falls short. On top of that, the sound quality is pretty bad (the kinks hadn't been worked out yet) and that, combined with the thick accents of some of the performers makes it really difficult to discern what is going on at times.
Visually the film is at least sort of interesting, with a bulk of the film being a series of static medium shots, sometimes done in long takes. Aside from that though, the film isn't really innovative or captivating.
I don't really recommend it unless you are a completist or have a big fascination with early "talkies".
One of the real Early Works of Alfred Hitchcock, has it his first, I don't know, but it lacks any real sign of the master himself in this film. I would give it a 1/2 star but Being a Hitchcock film, I will give it a single star. Think its supposed to be a British Comedy, no wonder I never dated a British Girl, Dry as a Bone. Must have come out right after sound was put on film, It came in a 10 Movie Hitchcock Collection. Your time is better spent playing in the middle of the road of a busy highway. If Hitchcock makes and appearance in this one, will someone please tell me where. 1 star its TRASH
View All Quotes