Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Way West (1967)
Odd epic bridging old and new attitudes about the Old West
This film is fairly anachronistic for 1967. It's attitudes are much more set in 1957 or earlier, although considering our cynical world, some of those attitudes, especially the ones about young and old love are quite charming.
The film is astounding for its three stars and the cinematography is stunning. This film has that old Hollywood top film stock quality, which shows in the brilliant compositions and frequently amazing scenery. So despite the tragedy, you get the impact and drama of the untouched nature that the first settlers must have felt.
There's also a good deal of tragedy along the way, which makes the film have veritas more akin to the late 60s or 70s. The treatment of Native Americans is actually quite reasonable, even beautiful, in parts, minus a terrible throwback scene of drunken Natives requesting alcohol for a toll, but don't let that one offense put you off the picture entirely. Fact is, it's probably not even possible to get a favorable film made now of Western settlers in the American West, which is a shame, because it is an incredible story, despite its now well-documented genocidal effects on the indigenous nations of what was to become the USA.
I'm not surprised I haven't heard of the film, because one could take this as a whitewash, but I was surprised by some modern scenes it includes. I'm a bit disappointed it's not better known, because it's pretty solid, if also at times uneven and unrealistic. I wouldn't brand it as severely cliched as some others have though. It's a hybrid of a sanitized Western with something considerably deeper and rougher. Widmark, Mitchum, and Douglas all play to their types, but Douglas actually ventures into less heroic territory than is his usual assignment. Mitchum phones it in a bit, but remains charismatic as always, and his role makes a fair amount of sense.
The impact of all three of these great actors can't be overstated, not to mention an excellent supporting cast, including some who are quite effective at reminding one of a time when people actually spoke and regaled each other with stories, and didn't barely move and mutter after too much internet and video games. There's a lot in this movie to remind you of times we are so far removed from, that you're really left what happened to the reward and simplicity of human existence before modern technology.
You're also left with some sense of the true tragedy and loss that many of these early settlers endured, though the struggles here are more interpersonal, and not so much against the elements, which is a bit of an oversight, though you are given a sense of the dramatic terrain that had to be conquered. There really aren't many Westerns that focus on the settlers, without gunslingers, so this movie is uniquely worth seeing in that regard.
Barbershop 2: Back in Business (2004)
A Black Mr Deeds Goes to Washington
This film is rated far too low. It mixes the character and humor of the original film and black barbershop environment, with a fight-city-hall story that is well fleshed out and solidly delivered by two great actors playing political and commercial heavies. The acting is without a false step all around. Ice Cube plays an almost Jimmy Stewart-like character trying to save a small business and local block against a land development scheme.
This film mixes drama and comedy, and yet doesn't come off too light or insincere. It's really a solid and quite political film. It also, though several flashbacks of Cedric's character, tells the African-American story of the 50s through 70s.
It's MUCH better than a 5.7 star film.
Narcos: México (2018)
Stunning, suspenseful, and very authentic in the Spanish language.
I've appreciated all these shows, because they let us into a world foreign to anglos that we would never want to step into. The huge cultural differences, or at least language differences are so evident throughout. The contrasts between the beautiful people (these are actors and actresses of course) and the beautiful locations, mixed with the utter horror of the proceedings makes for relentless drama, along with the machinations and betrayals as well. It's really quite the series, and offers a look into various stage of the drug war of the last nearly 50 years now.
HOWEVER, I personally think the USA angle needs its own series, not just narration of how the USA was involved on the periphery but a real digging into the stories that Gary Webb and Freeway Ricky Ross have talked about. Mena, Arkansas, Blandon, the Contras, the whole shebang.
We kind of got that in the earlier Narcos series, but we need more, not to mention all that's going on now. This series finished up somewhere in the early 90s, and things have only gotten more violent since than, at least on the Mexican side.
These series do provide a service of sorts, but there's just enough information on the American side of why this is happening and who on the American side of the equation has profitted from all this traffic and carnage, because at times this series makes it seem like the Americans have little power in the trade, and that's just not true.
Just this week, there are new stories about Camarena being betrayed by his own associates on the American side. Looks like this series may already be obsolete: (Narcos Mexico I suggests that a top Mexican politician was the one to order Camarena's kidnapping to interrogate him when it was likely the Americans themselves that ordered he be kidnapped and killed.
Greatest Events of WWII in Colour (2019)
Boringly titled, but the footage is really outshown by the interviews
Honestly, the footage in the first two episodes of this documentary is NOT why you should be watching this series.
This series is English, and the narrator and script is first rate. The war historians and professors are also top notch. Add to that a few surviving veterans and some truly solid human interest stories about the top leaders, generals, on down to the soldiers and pilots, and it's a surprisingly emotional and beautifully produced documentary series.
This isn't as sterile and rote as many WWII documentaries, and it's certainly more about people than the title would have you believe. I almost didn't watch it because of the title, and to be honest, there is footage in here from films, modern re-enactments, and some colorized B&W as well. There is a majority amount of authentic color footage as well, much of it I've never seen before.
The documentary also seems to delve into the true motivations and machinations of various real events in WWII, and the invasion of France in particular included a lot of information which was new to me. I consider myself knowledgeable, but certainly not a scholar, but it was interesting to hear various facts and theories related by scholars I had not considered before.
The second episode is dedicated to a real veteran pilot of the Battle Of Britain who was interviewed for the episode. You really got the sense of heroism and duty from this clearly very aged but lucid survivor. The editing is fast paced but really easy to absorb.
Honestly, this was far better than I expected. This is up there with the much older World at War series that Olivier narrated, though it's hard to beat Olivier for gravitas. Still, this really is worth seeing for any history buff and good for newbies as well. To those discussing omissions, of course that is going to happen in such a hugely broad topic.
What also comes across quickly in this series, more so than in other series I've seen, is the unnecessary futility and outright stupidity of Hitler's goals and ambitions, and the tragic waste of the entire war. Whatever savvy innovations the Germans proved they had in the first 9 months of the war was clearly being squandered from Dunkirk on. The first episode also does gives the best explanation I've ever heard of explaining how and why the French folded.
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Not perfect, but worth the time
Solo is better than I expected, or than anyone expected from all the awful kvetching this movie received ahead of time, plus the kvetching around Last Jedi. Star Wars has turned into a giant bellyaching exercise for fans and detractors alike.
Ron Howard clearly saved the movie, and made it a cogent adventure. That said, there are issues: Donald Glover has zero muscle or gravitas to him. I couldn't believe he was anything but the entitled, born-into-fame playboy that he is in real life. He didn't even really stay in character well. I watched his performance closer the second time through, and saw a lot more errors.
Emilia Clarke is also not credible. Her acting seems to consist of acting royal, and it becomes a royal bore. I didn't buy her as this super manipulative likely villain, nor as desireable object of affection, but she was better than Glover. It feels like she's essentially standing in from Game of Thrones, just getting this role because she is hot at the moment. It didn't feel like her heart and soul was in this. It seemed really phoned in, and you don't do that in a Star Wars movie.
Woody Harrelson is overexposed and in too many movies, and I didn't need him here. He was also not consistent in his characterizations, but that could be the original director's fault.
The real surprise, and the movie's saving grace is Ehrenreich, who someone manages to jump into the shoes of the most beloved and handsome scoundrel in sci-fi history, and actually pull it off, more or less. His is a younger more naive Solo, but that's what you want really. He isn't grating, and he has some credibility, so it works. Thank God they didn't put Glover in the role. As an actor, he's essentially a hack.
The plot was reasonable, however, and the action was brisk and suspenseful. The relationship with Chewbacca was revealed and built upon.
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
A long ways from the perfect scores people are giving this movie.
The only reason I'm giving this movie a 6 and not a 3 is because of its daring script, which I might add, is WAY too heavy for children under 9. I feel sorry for parents who felt obligated to take their kids to this, because it is challenging and depressing, even for adults. There's also a fair amount of in-your-face murder, and allusions to genocide. There's so little happiness in this movie, I give the producers some points for getting it through the studio.
I won't go into long machinations about the plot and characters. All of the characters are there, as far as I can tell, and it does get crowded. It's impossible to tell who has what powers at some points, since several seem omnipotent, with all manner of energy weapons. The problem with energy weapons as a plot vehicle, is that why do they even bother with learning combat? Why is an energy hammer more powerful than an energy spear? Why send packs of feral dog monsters if they can just be slaughtered? Can every single superhero breathe in space? Even Spiderman? He is aware that gravity is much reduced to swing on his webbing, right? Why does noone's hair or makeup get mussed after brutal combat, except on occasion, certain heros do get injured, stabbed, have their skin broken etc. There's absolutely no rhyme or reason to any of this, and it gets old.
A few characters have mind-controlling powers as well, and that gets really hard to track. Some have novelty powers that seem as directed by the special effects department as anywhere else. The battles are relentless, and frequently devoid of all manner of scientific logic. If you can't stand watching modern video games, you don't want to see this movie, because it behaves much like one.
The villain Thanos is definitely sinister, in voice and deed more than in looks, since he is a 3D construct, and I found it harder to take him seriously than the other live actors in the film. I still have no idea what Scarlet Johansson does, short of look good. She can fly around and kick things. THat's pretty useless to the other heros and villains throwing around energy bolts and space/time warping spells and weapons. For some reason, Thor has some of the most fearsome power, when he finally pulls it together in a method that is reminiscent of getting a lawn mower started, another thing which made absolutely zero sense.
At times, the movie definitely feels made up as you go along, although there was a clearly defined plot that was crafted as a devilish and depressing cliffhanger, so that's the most redeeming feature. There is a good parable about sacrificing what is most important to us for ultimate power, and it is well delivered, so that's the main thing holding up this otherwise hollow picture.
Big props to Zoe Saldana, for grounding and exploring the character Gamora, and bringing the best acting to a picture that doesn't leave much time for any of its big stars to do much but show up, make unfunny quips and fight. The writers were smart to give her as much dialogue as she had. Without the dynamic between her and Thanos, this picture would be nothing.
I am curious to see how this predicament is addressed in the next film, since the evil fell across this movie and also Ant Man and the Wasp, but I fear that the payoff will be one drawn-out slugfest and energy weapon fest, and that, like Revenge of the Jedi, it cannot be as good as the depressing Infinity War/Empire Strikes Back tragedy flick template. This was no Empire Strikes Back however. Let's be real on that one.
Let me add I'm being generous, because I'm an adult who can hack some of these comic strip films, especially the better ones like Wonder Woman. However, if you find the cliches rife in these movies intolerable, definitely stay away from this movie, because it is knee deep in many of the problems of this genre. And Tony Stark should be chasing Scarlett, NOT Pepper Pots.
Johnny Be Good (1988)
Lots of problems here
This film has two main things going for it - nostalgia and the ability to fantasize about having Uma Thurmann as your girlfriend in 1988. There are many fantastic shots of her in all measure of garb, including a wonderful body-length pajamas. Lots of nice white tops and jeans. Phew and Rowrrrrr.....
Anthony Michael Hall is an actor I decided I liked after all in his later career when he played Bill Gates in Pirates of Silicon Valley. He's got a measured confidence mixed with some menace underneath that all-american blonde facade. Despite what some might some might say about Hall's depth, he is about the only thing saving this movie from absolute disaster.
I actually found Robert Downey Jr to be mostly insufferable in this film, and its very early for him, but he isn't given a lot to work with. He does have a few good lines, though.
Structurally, this movie has a lot of problems. The plot is insanely thin, and it sort of purports to a certain amount of morality, but then it does not a lot to support that assumption. It lays out Hall's character compromise of his character in such an extreme, laughable manner, it's pretty hard to take it seriously. It's a movie that is sort of making fun of itself, or maybe the director and actors are mocking the script. It's got that feel of not being taken super seriously, something that happened quite a bit in the 80s and made for some charming fare, but also made for some not cogent films. The production values and soundtrack are good, however. The music is period, and well curated, but featuring lesser known tracks, not all well-known hits. I also always like seeing the uncluttered life of the 1980s, no cel phones, still a certain amount of neon, nice 1970s and 1980s cars, and the general party atmosphere of the time.
As I said, however, the number one reason to watch this is for Uma Thurmann. The one realistic thing about this movie is that in real life, this guy probably would be stupid enough to lose Uma Thurmann. Of course in real life, he never would have been dating her in the first place.
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)
Brilliant movie out of what's been called the last great decade in cinema.
First off, I have to give credit to the CHARGE network for broadcasting this film, albeit in the dead middle of the night. I'm sure a lot was edited out, but a fair amount was left in as well and they didn't massacre the ending.
The plot is interesting as it begins with an underage pregnancy story that is forgotten quickly, at least it was by me, as the movie progresses to a story about an American ex-pat, Bennie, played by Warren Oates at his peak. Bennie gets wind of a money-making scheme that goes horribly awry as they usually do in movies.
Beyond the story we've seen before of the pitfalls of greed and best-laid plans not working out (for EVERYONE) involved, the plot comes full circle at the end, and we finally understand the beginning, though I suppose it may have been clear to those paying more attention.
Bennie knows he has blown it, but he comes a sort of justice-laden antidote to the violent and ignorant unthinking vengeance that set the genocidal plot in motion in the first place. In this, the film becomes an indictment of base thinking about female/male honor as well as greed. It also has some things to say about the collision of cultures, with the gringos all running around trying to make a buck off of poor Mexicans, who are themselves locked in their own prison of violently held power from above. Average people and greedy criminals are cut down alike. It seems quite simple, and it is, but it's very well delivered. Warren Oates is younger than his Race With the Devil role here, and cuts quite a wiry athletic figure. His moves for self-preservation are quite convincing and exciting. The scenes are truly flawless, and its clear this was shot on the best lenses, generally at the best times of day.
Visually, apart from the violence, the film is spectacular in its earthtones and the rich colors of the cars really stand out. It's gritty, but quite colorful with a romantic use of sound and music as well. It's tough to say all the violence is truly justified, but Warren Oates wants to know more than he wants to walk away with the money, because he figures he can't live the rest of his life selling out for the money, even though at multiple points he could just walk away.
Of course, he couldn't walk in the first place when his girlfriend asked him to. This is the irony. He starts being amoral and he can't walk away, and then he becomes suicidally moral and he can't walk away. It's quite a subtle transformation that takes place underneath all the gratuitous mayhem.
Very evenly paced film. Kind of a paen to Mexico, and also, quite a sad premonition of what Mexico would turn into. The severed head is such a metaphor for recent years, but as gruesome as it is, we're reminded that our ancestors have been transporting human heads as long as we've been around. Peckinpah doesn't miss a chance to address just what that would really be like. I'll have to think a bit deeper about the metaphors triggered every time a character looks in the bag to check on the head. Like all great films, somehow this one makes you think.
The Woods (2006)
Classic Witch Horror Film without gratuitous gore
Without going into an entire description of this film, I will say it's a good sort of yarn about reformatory stories for girls and witches.
It's probably mostly a metaphor for the kind of rigid discipline young people were subjected to before the 1960s ended these kind of prep schools for good.
Still, the witch angle is well treated. The actors are all solid, especially the lead. The music and soundtrack were really creepy and added to the film. There was a good twist towards the end. The film claims some tie in to a real creepy school that burned down in 1965, so it's also working the period angle.
For me, the best part was simply that the violence was intense, but just not relentlessly bloody and gory, though there is some of that in here. This movie is more about suspense and drama, and not so much just a hackfest, which is always refreshing.
Ghost Town (2008)
Much better than its flop status
This is really a pretty strong movie that writes a new yarn around an age-old movie subject - ghosts.
Greg Kinnear, Ricky Gervais are great as a smooth operator and a lonely curmudgeon who communicate across the line between life and death.
Tea Leoni plays the attractive, intelligent prize for the right man of character.
There are some solid supporting characters as well. It's not ground-breaking, but it's a success as a movie, and deserved a better fate than to flop in theaters.
It's been reborn on various free tv channels like LAUGH, and I predict it will be one of those feel good movies that grows in notoriety over the years. It has a solid, positive moral messages about sefl-improvement, accepting mistakes in one's life, and moving on.
Year of the Dog (2007)
Obviously this movie has struck a chord among those who hate animal rights activists.
Looking at all the one star reviews here, you would think this movie assails mom, apple pie and the flag.
In a way, it does. It is the most unabashed pro-animal rights movie I may have ever seen. It mocks every day Americans who don't care what happens to the chickens they eat or the dogs that become too inconvenient for them to care for. It mocks a hunter. It mocks office bosses in a way quite reminiscent of Office Space.
Molly Shannon gives it enough comedic edge, but it isn't really a comedy. What she brings is a credible dramatic performance with a slight comedic edge.
I'm not saying this film couldn't be better. it could have a somewhat more complex plot, but that's not its purpose. This film's purpose is to portray an animal rights activist whose life is overwhelmed by her convictions and she follows them. It's got a great cast, and it's certainly not a one or two star film.
It will however offend conservatives, christians who believe they are the greatest dominant animal on earth, and have a god-given right to do anything they want with the animals 'below' them. It will also offend people who mock those who don't eat animals. For the record, I do, but I certainly empathize with the plight of animals in our world.
I'm sure the scenes involving the hunter really send people over the edge. I would've been happy to see a more extreme outcome, but the movie treated its plot in a way that made the most sense.
Anyway, if you have any empathy whatsoever with animal rights, you may find this movie quite cathartic actually. Now we just need a movie like this with climate change as its central topic.
Grounded for Life (2001)
Appreciate it in retrospect
I remember when this show was one, but I was pretty busy and the world was falling apart when it was on, so unfortunately, it probably suffered a shorter run than it might have had, though four seasons isn't a failure.
What I like about it is that it's a standard heartwarming sitcom, but still original. Unlike Family Guy, which is also original, it isn't going to gross me out or offend me constantly. It's a comfortable show to watch, the female lead is gorgeous but the girl next door, and the dad is a putz, but still likeable, and not a total idiot. There aren't too many political agendas creeping in either, but issues of the day are addressed in a funny, light manner. There aren't any duds in the cast either. The lothario friend is a bit weird, but he offers chances for dark humor in the show, and the kids and the father add in their respective bits.
It was a good show and it seems to be aging fine. I'm watching it on the LAFF channel, but it could probably succeed in higher level syndication if there is such a thing. It's tightly produced as well, a truly professionally shot and fast moving show.
The Restless Gun (1957)
American sentiment that no longer exists
I also just watched two episodes on Get TV. It's always instructive to see television or films made early, when production was extremely sparse, and yet the drama is propelled forward by real actors, scripts and dialog.
The second episode I watched dealth with accepting new german immigrants, a timely theme in the late 50s, and now for that matter.
Most of what I got out of this episode, and the earlier one which dealt with crime, calling a young murderer 'crafted not just by himself, but by society', was that America no longer has any sensible judgement or morality, and everyone is just spewing agendas based on faulty information, instead of taking one step and case at a time. A methodical approach to secular justice is expressed in these smart episodes, something this country has utterly lost, at least in its public discourse.
Of course, one particular side will blame the other for this condition. They are wrong. Everyone is responsible, especially the people blaming others. Regardless, these are excellent shows, totally watchable, with a strong, smart, just lead in John Payne. It makes America today look bad, and it makes modern film and tv scripts look average in general.
Game Over, Man! (2018)
Really Bloody, fairly offensive even for the cynical, slightly entertaining, occasionally funny.
First off, let me say that I gave this four stars to be sure not to improve this film's rating and I could easily have given it negative stars.
Let me start by saying if you don't want to see blood, do not watch this movie. It is insanely bloody and violent. I avoid horror movies like Saw, Nurse 3D etc, and this movie has moments where it is what would once be an X for violence.
Impaling, torture, shooting, mutilation are all graphically shown. This is not the action movie with occasional or even generous squibs. This is off the charts violent, so if you don't like that, do not watch this movie. When you see an action movie, you expect some graphic violence. This film is not a comedy with some serious violence like many buddy cop films. This is horror movie level violence.
This movie also has some sexism, though it also addresses it. It also has some really casual, unrealistic handling of guns that could give people the wrong idea about how casually guns should be treated. I'm talking these guys actually playfully shoot at each other in an argument in this movie. This is the kind of original scene a movie doesn't need. We already have enough people thinking guns don't do anything in this world.
I wanted to like the movie because the three lead characters are all good actors and a strong team, and the lead is indeed a funny, talented comedian.
This movie could have been a landmark film if it wasn't so graphic. It wasn't necessary. I think most of the jokes could have been delivered with more left to the imagination. THat's not to say the writing is brilliant. It's a big take off on Die Hard, and it's certainly not as good as that film, and that film wasn't close to how violent this one is, and that's saying something.
There's one great cliffhanger scene, some very competent and suspenseful random combat action, etc, but the need to make this a bloody film where you laugh at the carnage is just too much for me, and I can stomach quite a lot in a comedy if the gag is worth it. There's a couple sexualized gags as well that could be offensive both to women and homosexuals. The film treats this in a possibly acceptable way, but maybe not. The point is do the gags deliver more than they take away. I'd say generally not.
If they edited this film, and reduced just the blood and gore by 75%, it could be a viable film. It also gets really tiring when 'i'm going to kill you now' becomes the punch line for too many gags. It's just lazy writing.
Like I said, there are redeeming aspects to this film. The pacing is fast and good, and it's very professionally made, with a good cast, but the blood factor is just too much. Honestly, this is not a feel good film, and will be yet another example of why Hollywood is seen to be so corrupt. In many ways, this film is an atrocity that tries to hard to be hip as well. Do NOT expect an older person to survive watching this, and it's not for children either, at least, I certainly hope it isn't.
Life Stinks (1991)
Mel Brooks spin on the old riches to rags yarn
This film is far better than the 5.5 stars it's received here. One thing that stands out from other Mel Brooks films is that it's simply a film in the classic sense, not a parody of a genre or style. It's not a musical or theatrical, although there are some musical moments.
Mel Brooks plays a wealthy man screwed over by his associates, and driven into poverty. In this, it has a lot of similarities with Dan Akroyd's character in Trading Places, an earlier hit comedy.
There's a palpable second tier somewhat budget look to this film, but that gives it a charm that aligns with it's unusual theme.
Where this film really shines is in showcasing for long periods of time, the struggles of being homeless and broke in modern urban America. Brooks illustrates several characters and gives them all charm or humor. The plot is not a wholly original one, but that allows one to relax in a classic way of knowing what's coming. It's updated for the modern-day world, even the film is now 25 years old, it's still relevant today.
'Life Stinks' has some very political messages about rampant urban development and the exploitation of the poor and lower middle classes. In this regard, it is highly unusual as a film, especially in that the homeless organize as a force to fight back their oppressors, a somewhat comedic but inspirational ploy of its own. It's a film with rare openly socialist economic tones. However, the message is all delivered with classic Mel Brooks humor.
As a comedy, it benefits from the change-up from the previous Brooks films where a concept is hammered home, and you have to get on board or you can't stand the ride. Here, Brooks does less hamming, plays his character, and employs others to do much of the slapstick, while at the same time, creating a strong romantic bond between him and Leslie Ann Warren's character, a homeless woman. She brings a lot to the film, someone down on her luck with real aspirations and hopes for something better. It's a bit hard to buy her as down and out, but she messes up well, and does an excellent job carrying the core of the picture, proving again Brooks knows how to write broad roles for actresses.
This film is no dud. It's funny, warm, and, if you've ever been down and out and broke, you'll relate to this picture.
The Gospel (2005)
Competent film with a simple but strong world view
The Gospel is a professionally produced film on an unlikely topic - the modern black church. There is no comedy, or sci-fi, or horror, or vampires, it's a straight look into the machinations of the modern black church, and some of its most interesting moments are exposing the politics of what goes on behind the performances and production.
On that level, to an outsider like myself, it's a fascinating look. The film includes Idris Elba as a major character, as well as a group of other excellent black actors.
The film follows emotional trajectories that are somewhat predictable, and many are also left fairly unresolved, although the egos of the main male characters are resolved towards the end in a way that affirms a message of unity above all. It is an uplifting film, if a bit facile.
To truly enjoy the film, you have to believe religion and a Christian GOD is the answer, since any aspects of life that don't jibe with the view are pretty much ignored in the script, but it is a strong parable on community and no man being an island, so it carries a lot of credibility on that level.
Teaching Mrs. Tingle (1999)
Great Premise that Stretches Credulity Too Far
This film has a lot to offer in terms of entertainment, mostly, as many have noted, because of the performance of Helen Mirren as Ms Tingle. Her musings on life when abducted, referencing the great literature of the past, are exciting, and informative.
Katie Holmes and the other younger performers are all solid as well.
Where the film goes wrong is at the end. Perhaps if Ms Tingle HAD killed a student accidentally, then the young abductors would have been let off the hook, but since she did NOT really kill anyone, it seems clear she could've still filed charges against the students for kidnapping, for which there was ample forensic evidence.
Still, for the great lines given Helen Mirren, and her interaction with the younger students, in a teaching role, the movie is unique and entertaining.
The Twilight Zone: Twenty Two (1961)
Serling Crafts a Masterful, Shocking Twist
I'm not sure if Serling wrote this or adapted it. It does have such a shockingly effective twist in it, that it seems like it must've been adapted from some classic story, but the twist employs modern technology, (or tech of the 20th century - an airplane). Perhaps it could derive from a classic fable about travel, but Serling was masterful at merging ancient fables with modern themes and scenarios.
Regardless, the episode weaves nightmares, premonition, madness and death all into a tight package that is superbly acted by one main female lead, and two other supporting characters. Maybe the fact that so much of it occurs in the head of one person is why it is so disturbing.
I saw this episode, like many, as a teenager, and it just creeped me out for years. Just remembering it creeps me out, and I have not felt this effect from hardly any other horror piece. The fact that this is done with no blood and guts says worlds about the quality of the writing. Suspense is also not really a factor, except that you know she will repeat her nightmare and seems powerless to correct it. That right there implies a loss of sanity.
The elements of the nightmare are creepy, the repetition of the nightmare that the patient can't control is creepy. The hospital setting is creepy. The way the patient is drawn to a basement morgue, where a nurse comes out in a shocking manner, and says the crassest awful thing possible 'Room for one more, honey' is, of course, the creepiest thing about the whole episode - you think....
Then the fact that the patient gets a tentative grip on her sanity, but immediately loses it as her nightmare morphs into her real life in a different setting. and it proves to actually be a life-saving premonition has got to be be the most shocking and unexpected twist of all time.
There simply is no way to see it coming, because it is so unrelated to the build of the entire episode. The lead actress conveys her total mental unhinging, but in this situation, who wouldn't lose their mind? In that sense, the lead character never has a chance, even though her life is saved, but what about her mental state afterwards? She has literally lost her mind by the end. We aren't witness to her recovery, or understanding and joy that her nightmares saved her life.
She is alive, but at what price? I think this episode strikes subconscious fear over madness, and the power of dreams to harm us, as much as help. It speaks to the tenuous state of the mind overall, and that's why it has such a visceral effect on the viewer.
Serling wrote some incredible episodes, and this one is in the top five for me, more horror than his other thought-provoking work, but then Twilight Zone really was about horror as much as sci-fi.
That's Entertainment! III (1994)
A Lost Time and Culture
This film is a solid documentary about a form of culture that defined America to the world, and yet which we have completely abandoned.
This film does a great job of tracing the growth of the musical from its pretty amateurish beginnings (you can really tell the lousy quality of the early sound) to the pinnacle of classic Hollywood musicals that made American cinema a symbol of our nation's greatness in the 20th Century.
A few thoughts on what we've lost - the use of color in these films is astounding. In a world of verite grays and browns, the splashes of color and dynamic range from darks to lights in studio shots are incredible. The sets are deliberate fantasy instead of constantly reminding us of the dreariness of the real world. When did film become and exercise in reminding us of the doom of the world all the time? Isn't entertainment supposed to do the opposite on occasion?
The action that fills the frame - from front to back, with the 'action' being rehearsed dance professionals costumed and coiffed. It;s a level of teamwork across disciplines that films simply don't concentrate on anymore. Everyone's a weapons or vehicle or gadgets specialist. These people ENTERTAIN with their voices and bodies, supported by wardrobe and choreographers and songwriters and performers. It's a lost art.
I understand that you can't recreate this greatness because the studio system doesn't exist, and you would be recreating a time that doesn't exist any longer, but Hollywood COULD do more musicals. Dancing with the Stars is very popular. People want to be taken out of their lives. Musicals are a challenge, but when done right, they are truly incredible!
The Hateful Eight (2015)
Tarantino finally jumps the shark...maybe
I really enjoyed this movie 2/3 of the way through. I didn't think it was too long. I loved the dialogue and interaction of the post-civil war northern characters (jackson and Russell) and the southern ones (Dern, Goggins).
I don't think I've ever seen such great dialogue between characters of this time period. The arguments about morality and war, and race, with Jackson, as always, written such a strong, relentless, unapologetic part. I really believed all these characters were tough as nails, hardened by years of experience. Jackson's interactions with Dern's southern general character escalate to what is the film's peak, a shocking and grim revelation that is still believable, considering the circumstances, and Jackson's unapologetic view of American life. Jackson even offends a growing fan of his, Kurt Russell's bounty hunter, by revealing him to be a sucker for a story about being pen pals with Lincoln, but Jackson explains it in such perfect terms, about needing to disarm white people in America, that you understand, and maybe even learn something directly from Sam Jackson himself.
This stuff is all great. Then there is a poisoning that sets off the final act, as it were, and that's where everything goes south. First off, in what is a perfect film so far, we're subjected to Tanantino breaking the wall indulgently, as he does so often, by narrating some sequences. This is annoying, but passable.
Then we're subjected to scene two of the requisite Tarantino bloodletting, which is a flashback to a massacre of the original occupants of the haberdashery, which includes multiple innocent and friendly women. This seems, at first, to just be a pointless exercise in establishing the rotten characters of what turn out to be gang members tied to Daisy, the main female character/prisoner. The scene seems truly gratuitous, but may have another purpose...
Then we return to the scene where Jackson is finally slowed is not stopped by being shot from below by a gang member hiding in the cellar. He is shot in the testicles, and we are told this. Immediately the film loses too much reality for me. He would either be dead or totally immobilized and bleeding out, and yet somehow we are led to believe he can still shoot, talk, though he apparently can not move off of a bed.
There's a lot of grim violence back and forth, including the sawing off an arm, for no reason other than its supposed to be funny. At the end, Daisy, the main female character, is hanged over a rafter by the ex-northern Major played by Jackson, and the ex-rebel marauder, played by Goggins, in what appears to be a uniting of former enemies in the goal of hanging a woman (we are told how awful she is repeatedly, and she is verbally abused relentlessly, including tons of uses of the B word, which in a way, does not seem real period to me, but I can't possibly know.
On face, it looks like Tarantino has lost his mind at the end. He engages in pointless violence, even by his standards, and the film's end centers on lynching a woman who is part head of a terrible gang, but the film doesn't quite do enough to really villainize her, mostly because she is such a cartoon character.
The only possible explanation I can find for this film is that Tarantino is saying that even men divided by race, were still united in their hatred of women. This would also tie into the massacre scene. The race hate is clear in the movie, but the gender hate is a lot less clear.
Either Tarantino completely lost his mind, and just went for the humor and terror of abusing women, or he was subtly making a statement.
To my view, he made that point in FAR TOO SUBTLE a manner, because most of the men I watched the movie seemed to see it as carte blanche to treat women and minorities poorly. Tarantino did such a great job illustrating racial issues, I'm not sure why he had to drag gender hate into the film, and not quite outline as clearly as he needed to, because without the rationale I offer, the movie is just blatantly and pointless violent and misogynistic.
So I guess I'm a bit confused.
Showdown at Abilene (1956)
Better than Average Western
Couldn't quite give this film an 8, but I think it's a solid 7. First off, it's beautifully shot. The cinematography takes advantage of a few great landscapes, and some solid lot work, and even dares to shoot dark at dusk and in the dark. The depth of the film being pushed becomes really apparent, and it has a thick, rich, painterly quality to it.
Jock Mahoney is said to be wooden, but I think he adapts well in the role of a war- weary veteran with a disability he needs to hide since it is central to his ability to fight and shoot. This is one of a few dynamics that are written into a script that nourishes the emotions and attention of the viewer, something often lacking in modern scripts., where the visual and the casual destroys the immersion. All that's really needed to carry the film is one hero, one tragic figure, one template bad guy (who still warns the tragic figure he's gonna lose, and the tragic figure doesn't take his heed), and a heroine. This keeps the film competently engaging.
The real meat of the script is given to Dave, played strongly and with complexity by Lyle Bettger, whose big eyes project emotion well. His part is really phenomenal in that he is a decent man who is a childhood friend of Mahoney's lead Jim Trask, and yet Trask undoes his entire life and accomplishments, and I ended up wanting him to triumph more than the lead character. It's one of the most tragic figures I've ever seen played in any Western. The trajectory of Dave's destruction occurs on multiple levels, partially through the usual underestimating of his foe, but also at his failure to step in and take down the hero, who has done a list of wrongs any man would kill for.
There's a boilerplate villain, played competently, but not phenomenally, and a heroine who is gorgeous and devoted, but their characters are pretty two dimensional. The strength of this film is really in the dynamic between a hero trying to find his way, and the epic tragic figure of his childhood friend. In fact, the tragedy is almost overwritten, to the point you almost lose support for the lead by the end.
This film has the feel of a peak Hollywood Western, not too clean but far before the revisionism of the 70s. It just has a real authenticity to it, with the dialog and the horse work and stunts, which include Jock Mahoney doing some serious diving into the dirt and hand to hand fighting. The actor was a real physical threat, and it shows.
All in all, a strong film, especially for its time and budget.
The Oscar (1966)
A Contrary Opinion - a great film
I must be blind, but I don't find this film that camp. I actually find it pretty brilliant, a tragedy based entirely around hubris of the worst kind, which uses Hollywood as the fount of a kind of hubris only it can create, separate from government or military or business hubris, but merely the ego of people who sell their identities as actors.
The performance from Stephen Boyd is strong and explosively riveting, but odd, and it's odd because his character Frankie Fain is written in a two-dimensional contradictory way with a lot of violence, but this is an unstable man at his core, a man with no other talent or education, given whatever tickles his fancy. It just doesn't seem possible that this rotten a human could actually be a success with enough charm to be a movie star. However, what's great at the same time about his outrageous rudeness is that it offers great opportunities for people to be hurt, horrified, and in some sick cases, attracted to his ugly decisiveness. It also offers a rare chance for people who aren't intimidated by Fain to openly mock and denigrate him to his face. Fain's character starts out so rude he almost ruins the free break he's getting from a talent scout, but then his rudeness comes across on film as unapologetic manliness, and this is a commodity Hollywood clearly sells, regardless of the man behind the mask. This character was clearly written by someone who was disgusted by some major actor, and is a ruthless direct attack on the hypocrisy of Hollywood stardom.
People mock Tony Bennett's performance here, and he's a bit stiff, but he plays his uncharismatic but devoted friend/servant well. The narration is boilerplate, but functional. Bennett brings the drama numerous times when he has to, especially at the end, and totally saves the film by providing the major sympathetic character, and his pipes sound great yelling instead of singing. Elke Sommer, is gorgeous as a golden foil to Fain's awful character, who also eventually loses faith in Fain at the end. Of course, they had to write that she had trepidation at first, and he manages to gather himself together long enough to woo and marry her, after which point, he treats her so poorly, it's a miracle she stays around at all. However, this is one of the stretchy parts of the plot. Jack Soo plays an excellent supporting role as Fain's live-in butler.
Once the film seems to be achieving a sort of plateau, it jumps up the script with a critical piece of good fortune Fain ruins by a corrupt escalation by Fain by a stealth manipulation of the Hollywood press that makes him even more loathsome. Only an insider could have written this plot twist. The twist is explored in all its horrors, as Fain is openly mocked by his formerly docile manager MIlton Berle, who really twists the knife as he dumps a broke Fain.
Sure, it's camp at times, but the dialog is incredible. Yes, there are some moments of overacting other than just Stephen Boyd, but he really nails a kind of shell of a man who becomes too famous and successful for his own good, someone who becomes famous not for being an artist with talent, but just a man who can be engaging just by being an unpleasant villain on film, as Berle says - playing himself.
Whatever it's faults, I think this film is a unique look into Hollywood, albeit a bit unrealistic in the creation of the Fain character, but completely realistic in how it portrays an empty suit of an actor who bounces around for brief success in a Hollywood system that uses and discards him, just as he does them.
At the end, you pity him even though he's an awful person, (which everyone explains in great gruesome detail) but you actually grow to hate some of the people who claimed to help him, but are really predators themselves. It's a real comment on the general emptiness of Hollywood, but also a very personal warning to anyone who lets their ambition ruin their lives.
The Oscar made me wonder how bitter the screenwriter was who penned it, but also made me really respect the way they pieced it all together, including their biting, rapid but precise dialogue.
I just don't think is really all that camp. The look may be camp because it was shot in 1966, but it looks great. The look and the colors just add to the entertainment value. It is not a 5 out of 10 star film. Def at least a 7.
The Sea Wolf (1993)
Two Greats Make A TV Movie Work
This movie does Jack London's sailing yarn Sea Wolf real justice for an average budget attempt.
One thing that strikes me is how far away we are from the history of the sea in our modern world, and how great London's writing really is in this story, weaving the rawest tenets of human struggle into what was then one of the primary economic engines of the world, the commerce of the ocean-going fishing, whaling, or here, sealing ship. Of course, the sea tale is such a romantic notion, ironic in that it was so tough to actually live, and offers a writer so much because the characters are all stuck together in a constant state of peril from without, and this magnifies the sense of the peril between them.
Reeve is brilliant as an educated man of position facing the rawest of worlds far from where he was raised. He runs into another intellectual of sorts, a captain who has scrambled from poverty to occupy a position of pure power, which he holds in purely Machiavellian ways. Reeve's true sensitivity comes out in the role, acting as foil to the pure cynicism of Bronson's Captain Larsen, begging for mercy for others and for good when possible. I kept being struck at how strong, virile, and yet kind and warm Reeve seemed in the role, and the strength he would need as his own life took such an awful turn not long after this movie.
Bronson also gets his licks in as a man who has seen empathy repaid with betrayal so many times, he sees empathy only as weakness and vulnerability, and considering his surroundings, he makes an excellent case. The story sets these two forces, two approaches to life against each other, and basically never resolves them, which is good, because a resolution would be too facile. Both men stick to who they are. There are times when Bronson seems less than on, but his previous persona lends itself well here, lending him the previous strength, but I can tell he approached the role in a different way than his other tough guy roles. He created a real weakness in the rigidity of this character and conveys a fairly broken man who still knows how to be a brutal and effective leader. He isn't a wisecracker, here though. He's a weakening man in a tough shell. Bronson is past his peak here, but still rivets the viewer, especially a fan. I would've pegged Bronson for 60 here, but he was 70 when he made this film.
THe supporting cast runs the gamut from great to average, with a couple given exceptional moment in London's story. I enjoyed seeing two actors 20+ years later, now both gone. They really were both great.
Death on the Job (1991)
Compelling and sad indictment of worker safety in the US oil industry
HARROWING coverage of deadly accidents in the oil industry, and from not distant history. The film was made in 1991, and they covered a lot of accidents just from the late 1980s, including the Philips explosion in Texas that killed 23 and injured 314!, and then 17 killed in an ARCO plant explosion not very far from the first one. THe interviews with the loved ones of the deceased are really disturbing, as is the silence from the corporate greed-driven CEOs who all declined to be interviewed.
This documentary has been BURIED, but its great. Narrated by Joe Mantegna.
Directed and produced by Bill Guttentag
Double Team (1997)
Mixed Bag
This is an odd movie. Normally, I would not give this kind of movie much of a chance, but it lured me in over some free time on a Sunday.
I've liked Van Damme, but also thought he was terribly cheesy. This film showcases enough of the positives. In 1997, Van Damme was still a viable commodity, and takes this role seriously, and goes through a clichéd but well-executed transformation from down-and-out to powerful avenger. THe fight sequences are exciting and executed in a top-notch manner.
The film is redeemed greatly by Mickey Rourke, who plays a brilliant villain, and this film seems to have been shot before his plastic surgery, and makes you wonder again what he was ever thinking to go through with that surgery, because his charisma just explodes off the screen.
The film starts terribly weak, but gains momentum midpoint and ends well, differing from the huge majority of failed films that start strong and dwindle to a weak end. THis is its greatest liability. It simply seems so ridiculous at the start, and Rodman, not a professional actor, starts quite weak, but seems at least mostly credible by the end of the film. By the end of the film, I actually bought Rodman as an actor and was ready to see more, at least in a supporting role.
THe film has some original set pieces, and what seem like reasonably advanced effects, and well-executed action sequences, that were clearly done by a more professional team than an average B movie would warrant. Of course, this wasn't meant to be a B movie at the time, and clearly had a decent budget that I doubt was recouped. There are also some odd references to the KAL shoot down of the 1980s that I was really surprised made it into this film, which gave it a brief air of credibility in the political science realm.
Anyway, far from a masterpiece, and fairly clichéd, but genuinely entertaining if given a chance. Again, Rourke really makes a big difference here.