NinadeL

The roots of the book that this was adapted from can be found with Faust and Washington Irving, with follow-up work in Archibald MacLeish and the musical "Scratch." Among the film adaptations, All That Money Can Buy (1941), which adapts Benet's Faust for the first time, is worthy of note. A now we finally get Shortcut to Happiness? It's not a very good debut from Baldwin as a director. The tug-of-war with the producers was apparently meant to result in a second Bedazzled. Although this does have an all-star cast, especially the excellent and devilish Jenn Love, the story will have to wait for another adaptation to be sufficiently rehabilitated.

All in all, it’s an average romcom with a British touch (which I don't like much). If it weren't for the adorable Jenn Love and her accent, it would be weaker. It's a joy to see the transformations she makes with her character. For fans of Jenn Love, it’s a safe bet, and for everyone else, it’s a regular affair that doesn't offend.

Ustinov's Hercule Poirot and Ariadne Oliver make a good pair. The TV conceptualization is weaker, but it does have a certain dynamism. Everything they filmed with Ustinov was then repeated by Suchet, so the viewer can choose, but at least this era made Agatha's Belgian truly indispensable. Let's remember how hard it was for him to work his way into the consciousness of filmmakers for the first forty years.

With the transition from the big screen to television, Poirot films with Ustinov faced the question of how to keep people’s attention. And the momentary idea of the update was really not a good idea. It lacks the proverbial punch or at least the attempt at the (inter)war atmosphere that defines Agatha's work. The original 1933 novel "Lord Edgware Dies" was not a suitable substance for experimentation. However, we do have the rare casting of Suchet in a supporting role. But I'd love to see the original Lord Edgware Dies (1934) with Austin Trevor. It's the only thing that could bring me peace.

What more can I add? The 1941 novel suffers somewhat herein from sloppy sets and costumes, which is typical. Peter Ustinov is quite likable as Poirot for the second time. What's great is Cole Porter's soundtrack. Maggie Smith is pleasant.

I’d been missing the poetics of Sho.com. In retrospect, it is no longer necessary to follow the provocative theme as the main motif of the series; what remains today, twelve years later, is a well-written series that plays out in a sympathetic half-hour format the story of a suburb not so different from the place where each of us lives. Weeds is, after all, the story of a young widow looking for a way to live her life. And that's more than enough. Each series has a nice cliffhanger. So for now, after three seasons, that's good enough. Let's see if I can find time for the remaining five. It's starting to look like slapstick in places.

This has a very strange way of working with information. I'd really like to see what kind of feedback an Art viewer can have for this, let's say stylized, documentary. Czech silent film will always be a victim of random attempts to face it in the future, yet only the present is somehow still missing.

Do you love Prohibition? Okay, then. Are you ready for some real bloody carnage? Okay, then. Are you interested in something more than just a bloody slaughter? Then you're in the wrong place. Of course, for those interested in a more comprehensive look at Prohibition, I recommend the series Boardwalk Empire.

Fancy a classic romcom starring Jennifer Aniston? You do? Then pick something else. Although she does play her role as she does in a number of her romantic comedies, she has a polished style, she's sweet, endearing, and snappy, and her micro-world works. But the story of her counterpart is a different movie altogether, about the great pains of grief and repressed feelings. The power with which Aaron Eckhart plays his widower could boldly rival in another film, for example, Birth with Nicole Kidman. And together, unfortunately, it doesn't work at all.

Is this film trying to break the classic structure of a linearly narrated biopic? It wasn't necessary. The story of Linda Lovelace is not such a fundamental story that it needs to be told twice in one film. It's up to the viewer which version they choose, of course, but if we were to experiment with viewer interactivity, the Deep Throat story really isn't the best material. Why, you ask? Because it's too simple.