Levar Burton is a genius, and here is a great early work of his. A great baseball story, shot by the cinematographer of "Bladerunner." Finding it on video will be hard (unless you're near Scarecrow Video in Seattle), but you may catch it on TNT/TBS - every once in a while they show it.
Reviews
25 Reviews
One in a Million: The Ron LeFlore Story
(1978 TV Movie)
Probably the best tv movie of all time
14 October 1999
Herbie Goes Bananas
(1980)
Herbie headed for the scrap heap...
17 July 1999
The formerly jaunty little bug is dragged out for another run, this time a very feeble attempt at a franchise cash-in. It appears that the suits at Disney knew Herbie was due for the parts yard, and spent as little as possible to churn this out, hoping to make a quick buck off the few people who would see it on name recognition alone. Make the kids watch something else.
Herbie Rides Again
(1974)
The best of the series.
17 July 1999
"The Love Bug" runs this entry a very close second, but the energy of "Herbie Rides Again" makes it perfect for kids. There are many great scenes and sequences that appeal to the younger set, and the normally 'bo-ring' opening credits are spiced up with stock footage of buildings being demolished. That immediately made me pay attention when I was a little whipper-snapper!
Disney should have stopped this series at this point. The next film, "Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo," was pedestrian, and only saving grace was that it, A) features Don Knotts, and B) is 1,000 times better than "Herbie Goes Bananas," the only good thing about which is the whacky title.
Disney should have stopped this series at this point. The next film, "Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo," was pedestrian, and only saving grace was that it, A) features Don Knotts, and B) is 1,000 times better than "Herbie Goes Bananas," the only good thing about which is the whacky title.
Somewhere in Time
(1980)
Poor Reeve is cast adrift in a sea of Velveeta.
15 July 1999
I really love Reeve, but perhaps the director of "Bug" and the nearly worthless "Jaws 2" should have passed on this. Both parties seem to have been in this project to save themselves from typecasting (it's a cinch Reeves was all through the early '80s - see "The Bostonians" and "Monsignor"). Only 2.5 scenes work at all in this poorly directed and hammy exercise in the mechanics of tear-jerking.
The scene that is pulled off halfway is the first, marred only by a pretentiousness that points to something spooky going on. The first thing that clued me into the fact that the film was going to be more painful than I guessed was very small, but noticeable, and mistakes like it happened constantly throughout the entire movie. A camera pans through an apartment we know belongs to Reeves, simply from having seen movies before. Something that Szwarc doesn't get at all is that 95% of those in the audience are smart enough to figure anything out because all their lives they have ingested moving images and know their language subliminally. But this early pan, which I believe happens right after the opening credits, pauses on a group of objects so that the dumbest rock in the seats can recognize them from the prologue, and say - "oh, this must be Reeve's place."
Those type of directing decisions are made all along, and come in varying degrees. I'm shocked that Szwarc directed Bruce the Tempermental Mechanical Shark at all, because in this very simple production, he can't even seem to stage a simple two-shot without doing something obtrusive or allowing something stagey to seep into the lense. This goes from the large to the small - in one scene, Seymour recognizes Reeves from about 100 yards below and behind where he is sitting. I thought this unlikely, but was then treated to a shot from her point of view (considerably removed from her position forward via the camera set-up), and there was NO WAY Reeves' own mother would have recognized him in that shot. All you see is a shoulder and part of his head - and that all obscured by woodwork and bushes. A smaller gripe comes from the strange and even lazy-seeming inclusion of a shot between Plummer and Reeves on a gazebo in which a moth suddenly flies up from under the camera and cuts a wacky line between the actors before flying away. Why was that take even printed, and how did it make it into the final cut? Szwarc was not reaching for verisimilitude, that's for sure - everything in this movie is so stagey and polished like a tv movie that I can't see how the moth was allowed to upstage the actors.
Enough. The sad part about this is the utterly foul performance by Mr. Reeve, NO DOUBT pushed in all the wrong directions by the director. Many of the really bad moments are straight from the direction. In the beginning, we see Reeves in his office, obviously frustrated about something. Then he sits at a desk and proceeds to do every little thing a high school thespian would do: he picks up the phone, holds it, then hangs up. He sighs, leans back, purses lips, then suddenly rips a page out of his typewriter and gets up. Ugh.
The worst moments of all - the ones that made me cover me face with a couch pillow because I was embarrassed for him - come when Reeves is called upon to do anything out of the ordinary, like act nervous, talk to himself, mince around being a wiseguy, or do anything other than stand still expressionless. And for trying to shed the Superman image, there is a leaden moment in this movie where he does the Clark Kent schtick without any disguises. That made me cringe almost as bad as the moment where he does an impersonation of an uppercrust snob to entertain Seymour. Double-ugh.
I know I've really gone after this movie with a hammer, but before I say something good about it, one more thing... The character Reeve plays is very unlikely to begin with. An educated, successful playwright who seems to forget everything about theater when he goes back in time. Also, I find it incredible that what appears to be an incredible delusional psychosis crushing this man makes for anything like a fun time at the movies. I thought it was funny/sad the way this man suddenly goes mad, wandering around like a zombie and even goes off by himself on a 'trip.' Then the silly clothes and all the talking to himself and all the ridiculous things he says with a straight face. I found no motivation for his sudden departure for the island where his 'adventure' takes place (and watch the shot where he stops at the 'Y' in the road and decides to go left - as good an example of bad acting as anything in Corman). The film is trying to drop him into an obsession, like Dreyfuss and the mashed potatos in "Close Encounters," but you never grasp a reason why, other than he needs to go from point A to point B in order to service the plot. Szwarc believed endless shots of a camera-conscious Reeve staring at pictures would do the job - hardly! All you can think of is that if you knew someone who was acting like that, you'd want them on medication, pronto.
Aside from all that, the film has two good moments. The best scene comes along near the end, where the two leads are eating on the floor of their room. This is the only scene in this 104 minute movie that plays like anything out of a more accomplished film. There is a well staged and edited series of shots near the end of the scene that have seemed to appear out of a film that is not so obnoxiously innocuous. The other good moment resides in the last three shots, which have been done before and since ("Titanic"), but still work magic that shouldn't have appeared in something this drecky.
In the end, this movie accomplishes something incredible, in that it makes "Love Story" seem on the level of "Potemkin."
The scene that is pulled off halfway is the first, marred only by a pretentiousness that points to something spooky going on. The first thing that clued me into the fact that the film was going to be more painful than I guessed was very small, but noticeable, and mistakes like it happened constantly throughout the entire movie. A camera pans through an apartment we know belongs to Reeves, simply from having seen movies before. Something that Szwarc doesn't get at all is that 95% of those in the audience are smart enough to figure anything out because all their lives they have ingested moving images and know their language subliminally. But this early pan, which I believe happens right after the opening credits, pauses on a group of objects so that the dumbest rock in the seats can recognize them from the prologue, and say - "oh, this must be Reeve's place."
Those type of directing decisions are made all along, and come in varying degrees. I'm shocked that Szwarc directed Bruce the Tempermental Mechanical Shark at all, because in this very simple production, he can't even seem to stage a simple two-shot without doing something obtrusive or allowing something stagey to seep into the lense. This goes from the large to the small - in one scene, Seymour recognizes Reeves from about 100 yards below and behind where he is sitting. I thought this unlikely, but was then treated to a shot from her point of view (considerably removed from her position forward via the camera set-up), and there was NO WAY Reeves' own mother would have recognized him in that shot. All you see is a shoulder and part of his head - and that all obscured by woodwork and bushes. A smaller gripe comes from the strange and even lazy-seeming inclusion of a shot between Plummer and Reeves on a gazebo in which a moth suddenly flies up from under the camera and cuts a wacky line between the actors before flying away. Why was that take even printed, and how did it make it into the final cut? Szwarc was not reaching for verisimilitude, that's for sure - everything in this movie is so stagey and polished like a tv movie that I can't see how the moth was allowed to upstage the actors.
Enough. The sad part about this is the utterly foul performance by Mr. Reeve, NO DOUBT pushed in all the wrong directions by the director. Many of the really bad moments are straight from the direction. In the beginning, we see Reeves in his office, obviously frustrated about something. Then he sits at a desk and proceeds to do every little thing a high school thespian would do: he picks up the phone, holds it, then hangs up. He sighs, leans back, purses lips, then suddenly rips a page out of his typewriter and gets up. Ugh.
The worst moments of all - the ones that made me cover me face with a couch pillow because I was embarrassed for him - come when Reeves is called upon to do anything out of the ordinary, like act nervous, talk to himself, mince around being a wiseguy, or do anything other than stand still expressionless. And for trying to shed the Superman image, there is a leaden moment in this movie where he does the Clark Kent schtick without any disguises. That made me cringe almost as bad as the moment where he does an impersonation of an uppercrust snob to entertain Seymour. Double-ugh.
I know I've really gone after this movie with a hammer, but before I say something good about it, one more thing... The character Reeve plays is very unlikely to begin with. An educated, successful playwright who seems to forget everything about theater when he goes back in time. Also, I find it incredible that what appears to be an incredible delusional psychosis crushing this man makes for anything like a fun time at the movies. I thought it was funny/sad the way this man suddenly goes mad, wandering around like a zombie and even goes off by himself on a 'trip.' Then the silly clothes and all the talking to himself and all the ridiculous things he says with a straight face. I found no motivation for his sudden departure for the island where his 'adventure' takes place (and watch the shot where he stops at the 'Y' in the road and decides to go left - as good an example of bad acting as anything in Corman). The film is trying to drop him into an obsession, like Dreyfuss and the mashed potatos in "Close Encounters," but you never grasp a reason why, other than he needs to go from point A to point B in order to service the plot. Szwarc believed endless shots of a camera-conscious Reeve staring at pictures would do the job - hardly! All you can think of is that if you knew someone who was acting like that, you'd want them on medication, pronto.
Aside from all that, the film has two good moments. The best scene comes along near the end, where the two leads are eating on the floor of their room. This is the only scene in this 104 minute movie that plays like anything out of a more accomplished film. There is a well staged and edited series of shots near the end of the scene that have seemed to appear out of a film that is not so obnoxiously innocuous. The other good moment resides in the last three shots, which have been done before and since ("Titanic"), but still work magic that shouldn't have appeared in something this drecky.
In the end, this movie accomplishes something incredible, in that it makes "Love Story" seem on the level of "Potemkin."
Dune
(1984)
Come on! Where's DUNE 2, 3, 4, 5, 6?
14 July 1999
Terrible special effects, incomprehensible dialogue and textbook wooden acting -
and it's still great!
In college my wife worked at a Suncoast Movie Co. in Seattle, and she said it was probably the biggest mover of all the pre-1990 films. This infamous flop has some magical attraction to it that continues to draw viewers, despite dire warnings from stodgy acquaintances. That attraction is the indelible mark of Lynch, whose mark has never failed him, even in his lesser work - with the exception of the unspeakably bad Twin Peaks movie (and what a let-down that was).
Not many people seem to know that after the success of Lynch's "The Elephant Man," George Lucas offered him the chance to direct a movie called "Revenge of the Jedi," but Lynch didn't take it. In some other plane, the world is a much different place, with Lynch's name and very subdued mark on "Return of the Jedi." I believe Lynch turned the offer down because he knew he would be on a tight leash, whereas good old Dino and his Mexican stages would leave his hands untied (until the money started running out - those process shots!).*
There are so many campy things in this movie, that even for first-timers to Herbert or Lynch, or non-believers in the whole genre of sci-fi, that it's still fun to watch despite its crippled, top-heavy nature (unlike "TP: Fire Walk with Me"). McLachlan's hair helmet, Sting's one-note performance (I think he has only one line, which he merely emotes a little differently each time: "I WILL kill him," "I will KILL him," etc.), and the poor decision (probably made by Lynch at wit's end) to have many characters spell out the gears of the plot with dubbed thoughts (and it's still hard to follow to those who haven't turned the pages). I think the opening 15 minutes is by far the best section of the movie, but others swear the entire film "RULES." Great sets, great costumes, and look for Lynch himself as a spice harvester... "But, sire, THE SPICE!"
My opinion on the series is that it gets progressively more lame with each book. I've read the first one twice, and once anxiously dove into the series. The second book is good. Then, Herbert seems to have taken a cue from Dickens and written the rest to pay the rent.
* Duwayne Dunham, one of Lynch's editors ("Blue Velvet," the Twin Peaks pilot), did end up cutting ROTJ. After the TP gig folded, he went on to do kids movies. (!?)
and it's still great!
In college my wife worked at a Suncoast Movie Co. in Seattle, and she said it was probably the biggest mover of all the pre-1990 films. This infamous flop has some magical attraction to it that continues to draw viewers, despite dire warnings from stodgy acquaintances. That attraction is the indelible mark of Lynch, whose mark has never failed him, even in his lesser work - with the exception of the unspeakably bad Twin Peaks movie (and what a let-down that was).
Not many people seem to know that after the success of Lynch's "The Elephant Man," George Lucas offered him the chance to direct a movie called "Revenge of the Jedi," but Lynch didn't take it. In some other plane, the world is a much different place, with Lynch's name and very subdued mark on "Return of the Jedi." I believe Lynch turned the offer down because he knew he would be on a tight leash, whereas good old Dino and his Mexican stages would leave his hands untied (until the money started running out - those process shots!).*
There are so many campy things in this movie, that even for first-timers to Herbert or Lynch, or non-believers in the whole genre of sci-fi, that it's still fun to watch despite its crippled, top-heavy nature (unlike "TP: Fire Walk with Me"). McLachlan's hair helmet, Sting's one-note performance (I think he has only one line, which he merely emotes a little differently each time: "I WILL kill him," "I will KILL him," etc.), and the poor decision (probably made by Lynch at wit's end) to have many characters spell out the gears of the plot with dubbed thoughts (and it's still hard to follow to those who haven't turned the pages). I think the opening 15 minutes is by far the best section of the movie, but others swear the entire film "RULES." Great sets, great costumes, and look for Lynch himself as a spice harvester... "But, sire, THE SPICE!"
My opinion on the series is that it gets progressively more lame with each book. I've read the first one twice, and once anxiously dove into the series. The second book is good. Then, Herbert seems to have taken a cue from Dickens and written the rest to pay the rent.
* Duwayne Dunham, one of Lynch's editors ("Blue Velvet," the Twin Peaks pilot), did end up cutting ROTJ. After the TP gig folded, he went on to do kids movies. (!?)
Like a true Humpty Dumpty...
12 July 1999
All the king's men, including Syd Meade, Alan Dean Foster, John Dykstra, Phil Jounau, Douglas Trumball and Isaac Asimov (!), couldn't put this cracked egg together.
But they almost did.
I hadn't seen this since it was first running on cable around 1981, but lately I watched the 130 minute widescreen version, and it was not nearly as dreadful as I had recalled. Maybe the 142 minute pan-and-scan would've eventually sent me hurling my tv into the bathtub (the way I remembered the picture), but, AHEM, this time it was pretty good.
Highlights include the late (bless him) DeForest Kelly showing up with a Grizzly Adams beard, infuriated about being recalled into service; Shatner's eternal and indestructible ego served by the plot (he's actually supposed to be more full of himself than usual); the revelation in the cloud, and Spock's simple refusal even to be mildly polite with anyone.
Downsides include the outright clumsiness of the romantic sub-plot and the heavy-handedness of nearly everything. Blame Robert Wise for the above. You'd think that with the talent array behind the cameras and the moolah thrown at this puppy, they'd have gotten someone with a little more zip to helm it (and yes, I think "The Andromeda Strain" is over-rated). Also on the con-side of things is the needless wormhole sequence, which only manages to make it seem as if the crew dropped acid before taking off.
A near miss at being a good film and definitely worth a second look.
(Don't miss the moment where Chekhov gets zapped at his station - his reaction is Star Trek at its cheesy best).
But they almost did.
I hadn't seen this since it was first running on cable around 1981, but lately I watched the 130 minute widescreen version, and it was not nearly as dreadful as I had recalled. Maybe the 142 minute pan-and-scan would've eventually sent me hurling my tv into the bathtub (the way I remembered the picture), but, AHEM, this time it was pretty good.
Highlights include the late (bless him) DeForest Kelly showing up with a Grizzly Adams beard, infuriated about being recalled into service; Shatner's eternal and indestructible ego served by the plot (he's actually supposed to be more full of himself than usual); the revelation in the cloud, and Spock's simple refusal even to be mildly polite with anyone.
Downsides include the outright clumsiness of the romantic sub-plot and the heavy-handedness of nearly everything. Blame Robert Wise for the above. You'd think that with the talent array behind the cameras and the moolah thrown at this puppy, they'd have gotten someone with a little more zip to helm it (and yes, I think "The Andromeda Strain" is over-rated). Also on the con-side of things is the needless wormhole sequence, which only manages to make it seem as if the crew dropped acid before taking off.
A near miss at being a good film and definitely worth a second look.
(Don't miss the moment where Chekhov gets zapped at his station - his reaction is Star Trek at its cheesy best).
Lucas goes soft with his "Special Edition."
11 July 1999
The 'new' version version, I guess, primarily exists to fill the Lucas coffers, helping to fund the second trilogy. Most of the 4.5 minutes of new footage works for the better of the film - only one sad moment works against it ("Star Wars" non-aficionados bear with me here): Greedo has been made to fire first at Solo - point bank! - and HE MISSES BY TWO FEET.
Obviously, Greedo's 'new' poor marksmanship would've had him dead as a bounty hunter way back in bounty hunter training. Lucas, in his graying years, has apparently gone soft, and doesn't want any of his world famous characters to do anything icky, like kill anyone without decent provocation. As far as I'm concerned, this new action ruins Solo's entire pirate-like characterization. And it's ridiculous, to boot.
That '70's movie brat grit is all gone, replaced with a plasticity more damaging than anything else George is trying to protect us from. I can just imagine other "Special Edition" moments some sensible person talked him out of: the interrogation droid tickling Leia instead of drugging her, Tarkin flustered because he was "only bluffing" when he told Leia he would destro y Alderaan, and parachutes coming out of all those destroyed fighters.
I still gave it a ten.
Obviously, Greedo's 'new' poor marksmanship would've had him dead as a bounty hunter way back in bounty hunter training. Lucas, in his graying years, has apparently gone soft, and doesn't want any of his world famous characters to do anything icky, like kill anyone without decent provocation. As far as I'm concerned, this new action ruins Solo's entire pirate-like characterization. And it's ridiculous, to boot.
That '70's movie brat grit is all gone, replaced with a plasticity more damaging than anything else George is trying to protect us from. I can just imagine other "Special Edition" moments some sensible person talked him out of: the interrogation droid tickling Leia instead of drugging her, Tarkin flustered because he was "only bluffing" when he told Leia he would destro y Alderaan, and parachutes coming out of all those destroyed fighters.
I still gave it a ten.
The Peacemaker
(1997)
TV whipper-snappery not good enough for ya?
8 July 1999
Egads! Putrid.
Mimi Leder fails to translate to cinema with this hog. After this completely useless exercise in banality, she needs to be excommunicated to the Land of Lifetime Movies for Women. It plays like a bad Roger Moore Bond - without the campy fun (the, sometimes, only saving grace of his lesser efforts - see "Live & Let Die"). Played with a strained straight face to the hilt, long after you've stopped caring (I eventually tried to take a nap in the theater on its opening day!).
Two things: this is when I decided that Clooney apparently only has one role in him, and since this was released he's done nothing to prove me wrong. He's 'Ross' in every damn movie he's ever been in, even the stupid vampire flick. Also, I AM SICK OF MODERN SCREENPLAYS USING COMPUTERS IN THE PLOT LIKE A PAIR OF CRUTCHES. In films like this one, it is inherent that at some point (or at many), characters will sit at a keyboard and make that terrible key-clicking noise for five minutes while they come to some revelation. Brings the movie to a screeching halt like a pointless sex scene.
I can't (and won't) begin to list the cliches that have piled up in this thing. If I hadn't been in the Navy at the time of this film's release date, and completely sick of the endless shipboard re-runs of movies like "Dumb & Dumber" and "Turbulence," I would never have laid down the $4.50 for a 10 am screening in good ol' Sand Dog.
I could have put that dough to good use.
Peace.
Mimi Leder fails to translate to cinema with this hog. After this completely useless exercise in banality, she needs to be excommunicated to the Land of Lifetime Movies for Women. It plays like a bad Roger Moore Bond - without the campy fun (the, sometimes, only saving grace of his lesser efforts - see "Live & Let Die"). Played with a strained straight face to the hilt, long after you've stopped caring (I eventually tried to take a nap in the theater on its opening day!).
Two things: this is when I decided that Clooney apparently only has one role in him, and since this was released he's done nothing to prove me wrong. He's 'Ross' in every damn movie he's ever been in, even the stupid vampire flick. Also, I AM SICK OF MODERN SCREENPLAYS USING COMPUTERS IN THE PLOT LIKE A PAIR OF CRUTCHES. In films like this one, it is inherent that at some point (or at many), characters will sit at a keyboard and make that terrible key-clicking noise for five minutes while they come to some revelation. Brings the movie to a screeching halt like a pointless sex scene.
I can't (and won't) begin to list the cliches that have piled up in this thing. If I hadn't been in the Navy at the time of this film's release date, and completely sick of the endless shipboard re-runs of movies like "Dumb & Dumber" and "Turbulence," I would never have laid down the $4.50 for a 10 am screening in good ol' Sand Dog.
I could have put that dough to good use.
Peace.
The Game
(1997)
Fincher comes of age...
7 July 1999
"The Game" is a true throwback to one of my favorite film sub-genres, the seventies conspiracy film, in all the ways a silly cartoon like "Conspiracy Theory" could not be. Richard Donner directed that juvenile exercise, and, along with the main actors, you know it's just a pretender.
"The Game," however, is slow and deliberate, and Fincher lays a network of plotting that Donner couldn't handle on his best day. The film could easily be criticized for being an expertly crafted thrill-ride, too air-tight to live, but I disagree - as far as I'm concerned, the picture has more life in it than anything that came out in 1997.
Fincher knows this film's roots. "The Game" climbs the ladder of mounting paranoia with classic, unstoppable footsteps. It is quiet, like "All the President's Men" (and shot in a lot of parking garages, like that film). It even features a psych test similar to the one that Warren Beatty takes in "The Parallax View." The ever-mounting dread resembles that found in "The Conversation" (along with a distinctive toilet homage to that film).
The only thing different from those great films of the '70s (ones both mentioned and not), is how it all ends. Missing is the cynical, nihilistic ending, which was the best part of Fincher's "Seven" and many of this film's inspirations (stuff like "The French Connection," "Winter Kills," etc.). Fortunately, for buffs of this type of thing, the story has dived about as far into the depths as it could go before things suddenly lift (but not in a contrived way - as a matter of fact, things here are SO contrived, they transcend all that makes the practice so dull!).
Michael Douglas has his best performance (and role) in a long time, and Fincher has proven himself with his third feature, taking a wonderfully inspired screenplay and rising to its level. The best of its kind since "JFK," and my second favorite film of 1997.
"The Game," however, is slow and deliberate, and Fincher lays a network of plotting that Donner couldn't handle on his best day. The film could easily be criticized for being an expertly crafted thrill-ride, too air-tight to live, but I disagree - as far as I'm concerned, the picture has more life in it than anything that came out in 1997.
Fincher knows this film's roots. "The Game" climbs the ladder of mounting paranoia with classic, unstoppable footsteps. It is quiet, like "All the President's Men" (and shot in a lot of parking garages, like that film). It even features a psych test similar to the one that Warren Beatty takes in "The Parallax View." The ever-mounting dread resembles that found in "The Conversation" (along with a distinctive toilet homage to that film).
The only thing different from those great films of the '70s (ones both mentioned and not), is how it all ends. Missing is the cynical, nihilistic ending, which was the best part of Fincher's "Seven" and many of this film's inspirations (stuff like "The French Connection," "Winter Kills," etc.). Fortunately, for buffs of this type of thing, the story has dived about as far into the depths as it could go before things suddenly lift (but not in a contrived way - as a matter of fact, things here are SO contrived, they transcend all that makes the practice so dull!).
Michael Douglas has his best performance (and role) in a long time, and Fincher has proven himself with his third feature, taking a wonderfully inspired screenplay and rising to its level. The best of its kind since "JFK," and my second favorite film of 1997.
Unforgiven
(1992)
Eastwood's pinnacle
7 July 1999
Eastwood feels a lot of gratitude toward The Man with No Name for establishing him as one of the most recognizable actors in history (and he pays his respect to the two men who essentially created his image by dedicating "Unforgiven" to Sergio Leone and Don Siegel), but he bashes The Man in this film. His Will Munny has a name, a kind of sleazy sounding one, too, and he has all the problems and baggage 'Blondie' in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" never knew existed. In fact, Munny has been saddled with all kinds of character: used to be a cold-blooded killer, was reformed by a religious, loving woman who turned him to Christ - she died leaving him sad, lonely, 20 years 'on the wagon,' and devoutly Christian still (if more for her memory than for himself). On top of all this, he's a pig farmer raising two small children, still dragging around in his heart the guilt from having once "killed nearly everything that walked or crawled."
Well, trouble strikes and, as is typical in this genre, a character straps the guns on one last time. However, Eastwood and writer Peoples handle things in a very atypical manner. Munny is sometimes weak, frightened, and pitiable. Morgan Freeman is his partner, providing that actor's trademark calm and reason, and Jaimz Woolvett is Freeman's opposite - the jittery and immature, a teen-ager who reckons to become the next 'Billy,' and actually [seems] to look forward to going down in a blaze of glory. Woolvett has an amazing showcase here, and it's surprising to me that he has virtually disappeared since (with naught but bit parts in "Rosewood" and "Dead Presidents" to show for himself). Equally good are Gene Hackman, Saul Rubinek, and Richard Harris (especially) as a trio of negative forces, and Frances Fisher also has a few brief but strong scenes. People will always remember Clint the actor for moments like his holding an entire saloon at bay with a shotgun, but quieter moments, like the handling of Clint's first swig in two decades, is why we'll remember him as a director. One of the few films in recent years to deserve the Best Picture Oscar.
Well, trouble strikes and, as is typical in this genre, a character straps the guns on one last time. However, Eastwood and writer Peoples handle things in a very atypical manner. Munny is sometimes weak, frightened, and pitiable. Morgan Freeman is his partner, providing that actor's trademark calm and reason, and Jaimz Woolvett is Freeman's opposite - the jittery and immature, a teen-ager who reckons to become the next 'Billy,' and actually [seems] to look forward to going down in a blaze of glory. Woolvett has an amazing showcase here, and it's surprising to me that he has virtually disappeared since (with naught but bit parts in "Rosewood" and "Dead Presidents" to show for himself). Equally good are Gene Hackman, Saul Rubinek, and Richard Harris (especially) as a trio of negative forces, and Frances Fisher also has a few brief but strong scenes. People will always remember Clint the actor for moments like his holding an entire saloon at bay with a shotgun, but quieter moments, like the handling of Clint's first swig in two decades, is why we'll remember him as a director. One of the few films in recent years to deserve the Best Picture Oscar.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
(1920)
Meine weisse Katze ist tot...
7 July 1999
Apart from "Der Golem," this is the original freak-out - "The Exorcist" of its day. Produced under the oppressive weight of German Expressionism, it has become a hallmark in cinema history. It's a real sight, and obvious inspiration for artists such as David Lynch, Jeunet & Caro, and Tim Burton. German actor Conrad Veidt plays the horrific somnambulist - he would later flee Nazi Germany to come to Hollywood, where he found much work playing villains, most notably as 'Major Strasser' in "Casablanca."
The Living Sea
(1995)
The best IMAX film I have seen...
6 July 1999
I am an avid fan of the IMAX format, but rarely have I ever been a fan of any IMAX film. This is the one IMAX film that I feel has used the advantages of the format in nearly every shot, and besides that, it is an elegantly produced little film. Extremely beautiful, with many highlights. It is a must-see for all those who've never been exactly impressed by anything at an IMAX show (although the 'industry' is working overtime in amping up this cinema-sideshow - they promise it will be the 'next big thing' in movies). DON'T WATCH IT AT HOME.
The Children of Sanchez
(1978)
The longest movie ever made.
6 July 1999
Oh, boy. My brother is a jazz trumpet player and saw this film a year or so ago because of the Mangione score. It instantly became his least favorite film OF ALL TIME. He would groan and dry-sob over it, telling me how unbelievably poor it was, and even he admitted that the score matched nothing that happens in the film.
Being a lover of truly bad cinema, I gave this the old college try, despite his warnings that it was intolerable and seemed to go on forever. He was oh-so-right.
This heaving waste heap begins with a snail paced procession of Catholics making a pilgrimage through the Mexican desert, bearing a cross and all. Mangione's 'accompanying' music is incredibly upbeat and fast, sounding like it would be more appropriate during a car chase on 'CHiPs!' It reminded me of an effect that Fellini goes after intentionally in '8 1/2,' where you see very old, slow and fragile people parade by a panning camera to Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries."
The first true sign that this movie has serious trouble is the fact that 17 minutes into the show, they are still giving you subtitles, explaining who characters are! There are so many people in this movie that it would be near impossible to know who they were in one viewing, let alone with sub-titles (i.e., SO-AND-SO SANCHEZ: son of Jesus, or SO-AND-SO SANCHEZ: daughter of Jesus). This points to two things - the screenplay is weak beyond the shame of such a gimmick (and trust me, it is!), and/or the producers panicked when the film was done and realized they should've chopped half the characters from the book right out of the film. The absolute most ludicrous moment comes when, at the end of a long day at work, late at night Sanchez comes up to a door in the city. Where could he possibly be? At home, of course, ready for food and bed. Then the subtitle comes: HOME OF SANCHEZ. What, did you think people were that STUPID?! This is like a gag out of 'Airplane!'
The film's production values are that of low budget 70's tv, the acting is terrible (except Quinn, he's just Quinn), and the ending is not to be believed. This thing never seems like it will end - I first checked to see how long it had been running, hoping it was almost over, at the 1 hr 7 min mark! Absolutely, 100% deplorable.
Being a lover of truly bad cinema, I gave this the old college try, despite his warnings that it was intolerable and seemed to go on forever. He was oh-so-right.
This heaving waste heap begins with a snail paced procession of Catholics making a pilgrimage through the Mexican desert, bearing a cross and all. Mangione's 'accompanying' music is incredibly upbeat and fast, sounding like it would be more appropriate during a car chase on 'CHiPs!' It reminded me of an effect that Fellini goes after intentionally in '8 1/2,' where you see very old, slow and fragile people parade by a panning camera to Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries."
The first true sign that this movie has serious trouble is the fact that 17 minutes into the show, they are still giving you subtitles, explaining who characters are! There are so many people in this movie that it would be near impossible to know who they were in one viewing, let alone with sub-titles (i.e., SO-AND-SO SANCHEZ: son of Jesus, or SO-AND-SO SANCHEZ: daughter of Jesus). This points to two things - the screenplay is weak beyond the shame of such a gimmick (and trust me, it is!), and/or the producers panicked when the film was done and realized they should've chopped half the characters from the book right out of the film. The absolute most ludicrous moment comes when, at the end of a long day at work, late at night Sanchez comes up to a door in the city. Where could he possibly be? At home, of course, ready for food and bed. Then the subtitle comes: HOME OF SANCHEZ. What, did you think people were that STUPID?! This is like a gag out of 'Airplane!'
The film's production values are that of low budget 70's tv, the acting is terrible (except Quinn, he's just Quinn), and the ending is not to be believed. This thing never seems like it will end - I first checked to see how long it had been running, hoping it was almost over, at the 1 hr 7 min mark! Absolutely, 100% deplorable.
Salesman
(1969)
10 best of the sixties...
6 July 1999
A ground-breaking documentary when it first appeared, and made the Maysles brothers and their small crew as famous as documentarians could get in the days before VCRs and the Discovery Channel (and they'd get even more recognition for their follow-up to Salesman, Gimme Shelter).
This is an almost indescribable excursion into the daily struggles of a group of Bible salesmen, going door to door from New Jersey working class neighborhoods to Floridian trailer parks. It is "Glengarry Glen Ross" in reality, with cold-hearted threats from the guys at the top, ragged older guys complaining they've 'got the same old leads,' and younger guys hustling up the chain. The film eventually centers on an older, down and out salesman, probably the obscure prototype for Mamet's Jack Lemmon character in Glen Ross, who used to be the pacesetter, but hasn't sold anything substantial in months. The genius of this idea is that they're Bible salesmen, and we see the way they act away from the 'good Christian folks' they're trying to persuade. Filmed in handheld black and white, following the guys everywhere (dressed in their black suits and black ties they resemble the Reservoir Dogs ambling down the street with sample cases instead of guns), the film is full of chintzy sixties Americana: pink flamingos, cinderblock hotel rooms, and they all wear hats and chain smoke.
In my opinion, this is one of the ten best films made in the sixties. Not every videostore is going to have it, but it's definitely worth a few phone calls. Seek it out!
This is an almost indescribable excursion into the daily struggles of a group of Bible salesmen, going door to door from New Jersey working class neighborhoods to Floridian trailer parks. It is "Glengarry Glen Ross" in reality, with cold-hearted threats from the guys at the top, ragged older guys complaining they've 'got the same old leads,' and younger guys hustling up the chain. The film eventually centers on an older, down and out salesman, probably the obscure prototype for Mamet's Jack Lemmon character in Glen Ross, who used to be the pacesetter, but hasn't sold anything substantial in months. The genius of this idea is that they're Bible salesmen, and we see the way they act away from the 'good Christian folks' they're trying to persuade. Filmed in handheld black and white, following the guys everywhere (dressed in their black suits and black ties they resemble the Reservoir Dogs ambling down the street with sample cases instead of guns), the film is full of chintzy sixties Americana: pink flamingos, cinderblock hotel rooms, and they all wear hats and chain smoke.
In my opinion, this is one of the ten best films made in the sixties. Not every videostore is going to have it, but it's definitely worth a few phone calls. Seek it out!
Hamlet
(1960 TV Movie)
German Television and Shakespeare!
6 July 1999
I have seen only about 70 episodes of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (my personal idea of the greatest achievement in television), but this version of Hamlet, produced for German television, probably has to be the best film I've ever seen shotgunned on that program (whoops - I forgot they did "Day of the Triffids"). Don't get me wrong - it's not very good (I gave it a '5') - but it's certainly no "I Accuse My Parents," or something from the beloved Coleman Frances oeuvre. It's even better than "Marooned" (aka "Space Travelers").
Mr. B Natural
(1957)
The most incredible film ever produced...
3 July 1999
I am going to give this sucker a 10, but not because it's any good. It has to be the most horrifying and strange concoction ever seen by mortal man - Lynch, Argento and Cronenberg couldn't come up with anything as weird as this if they put their heads together.
If this thing was one frame longer than it was, it would take a nose dive in my rating. It would also create deep psychological torment attended by suicidal tendencies.
The only way I can imagine anyone actually finding a copy of this is attached at the beginning of "Mystery Science Theater 3000," episode 319 ("War of the Colossal Beast"). The reactions of Joel and the 'bots are priceless.
If this thing was one frame longer than it was, it would take a nose dive in my rating. It would also create deep psychological torment attended by suicidal tendencies.
The only way I can imagine anyone actually finding a copy of this is attached at the beginning of "Mystery Science Theater 3000," episode 319 ("War of the Colossal Beast"). The reactions of Joel and the 'bots are priceless.
Steel Dawn
(1987)
"It only takes a moment to break a man's neck."
31 May 1999
An insipient version of SHANE. Absolutely putrid. Deviates from all logic - there are many scenes in which characters have two or even three ways out of a situation, but refuse to use them so that the action keeps going. Also, Swayze's lines are all terribly delivered, but most painful are his herotype-one-liners. As bad as you've ever seen.
It's at least good to know from these post-apocalyptic movies (even the good ones) that hair crimpers will survive the devastation for womens' hair styling needs.
It's at least good to know from these post-apocalyptic movies (even the good ones) that hair crimpers will survive the devastation for womens' hair styling needs.
Looking for Richard
(1996)
Virtually unwatchable
13 May 1999
Apparently Shakespeare equals high brow which equals in turn a bunch of folks not seeing something for what it really is. At one point in this film, someone (I believe Pacino's producer) warns him that film is getting off track, that it was once about how the masses think about Shakespeare through the vehicle of RICHARD III. Instead he decides to shoot a chopped up play with random comments sprinkled throughout. Some scenes seemed to be included as home movies for Al (was there really ANY reason for the quick visit to Shakespeare's birthplace, other than for a laugh about something unexpected which happens there?), and, before the film has really even begun, we are treated to seeing Al prance around and act cute and funny for the camera. I thought his silly act with Kay near the end of GODFATHER III with the knife to his throat was AN ACT - but apparently it's how Al really behaves in person.
Enough rambling. Here's a shotgun smattering of why I didn't even make it 3/4 of the way through this: 1) pretentious - Al always knows when the camera is on him, whether he's acting as Richard or in a 'real' conversation with someone - you can see it in the corner of his eyes, also, some of the actors around the rehearsal table become untethered and wax hammy to the extreme. If anyone reading this has ever spent any time with an group of actors and has witnessed this kind of thing from the outside, it's unbearable. "Look at me, chewing all the scenery!" 2) Winona Ryder. When she appears as Lady Anne, this film comes to a screeching halt, which it never recovers from. She has nothing to add in the discussion scenes but the camera lingers on her to bring in the kiddoes. Her performance is dreadful, to boot. 3) the only things you really learn from this are told to you by the very scholars the filmmakers are trying to keep out of the picture. Of course, you also learn that Pacino shouldn't be directing films (or doing Richard in the first place). I'd rather watch BOBBY DEERFIELD than this.
Lastly, read the play and learn it for yourself. Go out and see it performed. In 1997 I saw the play performed at the University of Washington Ethnic Cultural Theater, and it made what we see in this film seem like high school drama (except for the gratuitous throat slashing of Clarence! My God! Was that necessary?!)
It's all just a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nada.
Enough rambling. Here's a shotgun smattering of why I didn't even make it 3/4 of the way through this: 1) pretentious - Al always knows when the camera is on him, whether he's acting as Richard or in a 'real' conversation with someone - you can see it in the corner of his eyes, also, some of the actors around the rehearsal table become untethered and wax hammy to the extreme. If anyone reading this has ever spent any time with an group of actors and has witnessed this kind of thing from the outside, it's unbearable. "Look at me, chewing all the scenery!" 2) Winona Ryder. When she appears as Lady Anne, this film comes to a screeching halt, which it never recovers from. She has nothing to add in the discussion scenes but the camera lingers on her to bring in the kiddoes. Her performance is dreadful, to boot. 3) the only things you really learn from this are told to you by the very scholars the filmmakers are trying to keep out of the picture. Of course, you also learn that Pacino shouldn't be directing films (or doing Richard in the first place). I'd rather watch BOBBY DEERFIELD than this.
Lastly, read the play and learn it for yourself. Go out and see it performed. In 1997 I saw the play performed at the University of Washington Ethnic Cultural Theater, and it made what we see in this film seem like high school drama (except for the gratuitous throat slashing of Clarence! My God! Was that necessary?!)
It's all just a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nada.
The Compleat Beatles
(1982 Video)
The best film on the Beatles...
1 May 1999
No other film on the Beatles has moved me as this has. The "Anthology" was very good, more in depth, and featured the three remaining Beatles. This film does not have any new interviews, done for the purpose of the production. However, it packs twice the punch of "The Anthology." The last five minutes will bring a tear to any fan's eyes, and the film as a whole has the power not only to entertain those who are not fans, but even sway them into becoming fans. "The Anthology" was much too large a project to do anything of the sort. The fanfare surrounding it perhaps accounted for some new fans, but in time, the film itself will fade. Too bad this film already has faded, although it is simple, to the point, and from the heart.
A definite '10.'
A definite '10.'
Wizards of the Lost Kingdom
(1985)
Yowser! Now this is bad...
19 April 1999
Go immediately and rent this movie. It will be be on a bottom shelf in your local video store and will be covered in dust. No one will have touched it in years. It may even be a $.50 special! It's worth ten bucks, I swear! Buy it! There aren't very many films than can compare with this - the celluloid version of that goo that forms at the bottom of a trash can after a few years. Yes, I gave it a '1,' but it really deserves much lower. 1-10 scales were not designed with stuff like this in mind.
Wizards
(1977)
Could have been great...
19 April 1999
Usually I really dig these weird animated films from the '70s which always seem to feature fusion on the soundtrack, no matter what the setting. I believe that the pinnacle of this tiny genre is "Savage Planet," and I could see that this film had some roots in that vein. However, Bakshi's sense of humor sinks most of the good here - far too many elements from his "Fritz the Cat" have snuck in and sabotaged things. The still prologue builds one of the main wizards into a mighty figure, but when you finally see him animated, he looks like the prototype for Captain Caveman and talks like Columbo. He smokes cigars with his toes and pals around with a typical fantasy cliche - the geek's wet dream fantasy big-breasted fairy woman. I'm so sick of seeing that kind of juvenile stuff in work like this.
On the upside, some of the design is very impressive, especially the black & white background work. The music is like generic Yes, but is sufficiently groovy.
It's only 81 minutes long, but after the first half, it begins to wear thin. I saw this with two other guys: one fell asleep and my other friend and I spent the last 30 minutes or so in conversation, occasionally pausing to admire some design.
On a final note, the film relies much too heavily on Nazi imagery. The first blatant use of it doesn't arrive for a while (and the first use remains the best in the film: Black Wolf's throne room), but after Bakshi first concedes to Hitler the whole thing snowballs until you feel you must be watching the undiscovered animated version of "Triumph of the Will."
On the upside, some of the design is very impressive, especially the black & white background work. The music is like generic Yes, but is sufficiently groovy.
It's only 81 minutes long, but after the first half, it begins to wear thin. I saw this with two other guys: one fell asleep and my other friend and I spent the last 30 minutes or so in conversation, occasionally pausing to admire some design.
On a final note, the film relies much too heavily on Nazi imagery. The first blatant use of it doesn't arrive for a while (and the first use remains the best in the film: Black Wolf's throne room), but after Bakshi first concedes to Hitler the whole thing snowballs until you feel you must be watching the undiscovered animated version of "Triumph of the Will."
With caution...
15 April 1999
Don't take this film lightly. It has to be one of the most heart-breaking films ever made. I saw this only once - 9 years ago! - and to this day, I still have Bobby McFerrin's depressing little theme in my head. Don't plan on doing much after this has ended. It's like SHOAH packed into less than 90 minutes. I never thought the presence of something so stupid as Alf (from the sitcom) could bring tears to my eyes. See this and find out why.
I'm shocked and saddened that I'm only the 9th person to vote for this film.
I'm shocked and saddened that I'm only the 9th person to vote for this film.
AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies: America's Greatest Movies
(1998 TV Movie)
A genuine waste of time
14 April 1999
Warning: Spoilers
I can't imagine a more pointless presentation than this. It skips along at an Mtv pace and along the way completely ruins any film one hasn't yet seen by revealing all the plot points - actually showing some of the most tremendous moments in film history completely out of context!
Some of the moments cut and pasted into this "Idiots Guide to Cinema" are absolutely senseless outside of the body of the films they belong to. The Russian roulette sequence from "The Deer Hunter" has no impact at all (excepting shock violence to anyone that hasn't seen it) because the people playing it are NOBODY. They have no history, they are only images playing a game that will water down one of the most electric scenes ever edited together. Another example is the shoddy treatment given to "Lawrence of Arabia." You wait 219 minutes for that final moment where you learn T.E. knows he has no future. Well, they rip that scene out and play it after a 3 minute synopsis of the film, along the way telling you nothing new about the film that can't be read in a write-up in TVGuide.
This nonsense is just a collection of vital organs taken out of the bodies of a bunch of great (and a few not-so-great) films.
What's really sad is that this thing will be used as a virtual Cliff's Notes of motion pictures. Why see "Citizen Kane" when you can get all the important points here to impress your friends and teachers?
What a rip-off.
Some of the moments cut and pasted into this "Idiots Guide to Cinema" are absolutely senseless outside of the body of the films they belong to. The Russian roulette sequence from "The Deer Hunter" has no impact at all (excepting shock violence to anyone that hasn't seen it) because the people playing it are NOBODY. They have no history, they are only images playing a game that will water down one of the most electric scenes ever edited together. Another example is the shoddy treatment given to "Lawrence of Arabia." You wait 219 minutes for that final moment where you learn T.E. knows he has no future. Well, they rip that scene out and play it after a 3 minute synopsis of the film, along the way telling you nothing new about the film that can't be read in a write-up in TVGuide.
This nonsense is just a collection of vital organs taken out of the bodies of a bunch of great (and a few not-so-great) films.
What's really sad is that this thing will be used as a virtual Cliff's Notes of motion pictures. Why see "Citizen Kane" when you can get all the important points here to impress your friends and teachers?
What a rip-off.
Hôtel Terminus
(1988)
Stick with it...
20 December 1998
The film is very good but sags in the third hour. However, you must stay with it. Take a break, have some coffee, and come back. I saw this film a good five years ago, but the final few sentences were so moving I remember them still, word for word. It must be seen. We're talking hot tears and goosebumps.
Survival Run
(1979)
One for the ages...
20 December 1998
I had the great [mis]fortune to find this on local tv at 3 in the morning this week - and what a treat! At those wee hours of the night, something like this becomes a surreal, dreamlike oddity instead of the bleeding ulcer it would seem in daylight hours. This is a film that is too bad even for MST3K - it makes its own laughs. Your jaw will drop at how absolutely bad - BAD - this things is, and poor Ray Milland is on hand, sleepwalking like Im Ho Tep through this mess. Actually, he just sits in a lawn chair and mumbles much of the time. There is an incredible moment halfway through where the director seems to have gone berserk, asking for all 5 of his protagonists to spout the entire range of tragic pathos: where the film has just had lazy, bad performances, at this point they seem to turn on a dime and try to re-enact scenes from The Trojan Women. It's unbelievable, and I honestly can't figure out how Graves and Milland ended up in it. They were frequently in bad movies, I know, but this is ridiculous! Amateur hour is too good for this, it seems like this was made by a bunch of junior high kids on a weekend. Check it out.
Tell Your Friends