jjh6519 Reviews

The Aviator (2004)

Excellent, but ending was too abrupt

[8/10 · 26 December 2004]

I saw "The Aviator" last night (Dec. 25, 2004), and thought it was exceptional film-making in so many ways. Scorsese captures the Hollywood scene so well, and the plot informed me of things I had never known about Howard Hughes.

DiCaprio carries the show admirably as the very complex Huges, with both zest and enthusiasm and also the ability to effectively capture Hughes' private demons at work. DiCaprio's performance is one of his very best, and I expect him to be nominated for Best Actor.

Cate Blanchett is so dead-on as Katharine Hepburn (yes, I never thought she looked anything like Hepburn, but the way she carries herself, speaks, laughs, etc. is pure Hepburn). Blanchett should be near the top of the list for consideration as Best Supporting Actress.

I also thought Alan Alda's performance as the seedy Senator out to destroy Hughes (and also on the take from Hughes' competitors), was possibly the best he's turned in on the big screen. I would not be surprised to see him nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

In all, the film features top-rate cinematography, direction, sets, a compelling tale, fantastic recreation of the making of old films, and great acting. The problem is with the choice of the ending. It should not have ended the way it did. Its ending would have been effective had the movie started out, as in "Lawrence of Arabia", with the death and funeral of Hughes. But it did not, so I think people not familiar with the final days of his life, will be disappointed -- not with the fascinating film, but the abrupt way it ends.

Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002)

Breathtaking, Exceptional

[9/10 · 1 May 2003]

This was far better than the documentary that I was led to believe I would see. It is one of the best movies from 2002, in my opinion. It strikes me as a cross between "Walkabout" (for obvious reasons) and "The Color Purple" (the emotional bond between the children, the painful depiction of being torn from their loved ones) and any number of movies about Nazis planning the Holocaust (Kenneth Branagh nails his part down with a cold, condescending but scarily earnest "protector" who sincerely believes he is doing the best for the Aborigines by tearing apart their families and trying to make the Aborigine race vanish through intermarriage with whites).

That having been said, this is an uplifting story, with exceptional cinematography and music (by Peter Gabriel) and direction by Phillip Noyce, but even more exceptional performances by the three young girls. None had ever acted before. They were picked from thousands of Aboriginal girls who tried out. Also, please note that David Gullipil (sp?), the teenage Aborigine "walkabout" in the early 1970s "Walkabout", was given a key role as the tracker of the girls.

If you get the DVD version, please see the "making of the movie" special. It is worthwhile viewing on its own. You get to know those three little girls so much better, and you get a terrific sense of genuine humanity from director-producer Phillip Noyce.

Lolita (1997)

Much better than expected

[9/10 · 16 March 2003]

After seeing the Kubrick version, and thinking no one could ever make a better Humbert than James Mason or a better Lolita than Sue Lyon, I saw this updated version, and I was very impressed. It's actually an improvement.

1. Quilty: Of all the things I did not like about the Kubrick version, it was Peter Sellers' quirkily irritating and totally unclear portrayal of this jerk. The latest version completely downplays the character, other than to show that he is a dark, mysterious, monstrous person who keeps showing up in the shadows. Also, it finally clarifies that Quilty is the very worst of Humbert... It is Humbert without a soul, conscience or any redeeming quality. It becomes clear that he is truly a monster, and makes Humbert look almost saintly by comparison.

2. Humbert and Lolita: While I enjoyed the chemistry between James Mason and Sue Lyon immensely, the chemistry between Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain is ten times better. This is due mostly to Swain, who basically portrays a part of herself. Her teasing and her battles with Irons are priceless and extremely believable. Also, the Sue Lyon version showed Humbert going after an older teen, not as repugnant as the Dominique Swain version showing Humbert going after an actual underaged teen. Also, in this version, most of the movie is about Humbert and Lolita, and their adventures, misfortunes and run from the law.

3. Humbert himself: For the first time, we see the reason for his obsession, and it isn't entirely pedophilia, as in the case of Quilty. Irons is given many additional scenes to show the conflict between his better nature and his pedophile nature, to show that he understands that what he is doing is not only wrong but will be his downfall.

4. The ending: I prefer the way it ended so much more in this later version. First, Quilty finally, for the first time, comes out of the shadows, and we see him for his repulsive self. Sellers' portrayal was too offbeat to allow us to despise this guy as he should be despised. Also, the final "fini" is so downbeat so as to let you know in no uncertain terms that you have just witnessed a multiple tragedy.

Adrian Lyne did an excellent job of directing, and the music of Ennio Morricone was a great help to the also excellent cinematography.

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

Enjoyable film!

[9/10 · 18 January 2003]

I had a lot of fun watching this movie! Leonardo DiCaprio was given the role of a lifetime -- he is perfect for the role of a teenager who can pass for an adult, and he makes the most of it. Teaming him with Christopher Walken as his father was a stroke of genius, as the two really resemble one another, something that never would have occurred to me. Both of them are great, and Tom Hanks has fun with his role, too.

(I find it interesting that the Hanks role was offered first to James Gandolfini, but he had to turn it down due to his commitments to "The Sopranos". I can imagine what a great comic turn Gandolfini would have had with this role as the perplexed, straight-laced FBI agent.)

And Steven Spielberg, who inherited this film from other directors, took it and made it into a truly enjoyable experience. It is probably the lightest, funniest Spielberg movie ever.

Adaptation. (2002)

Stimulating

[9/10 · 12 January 2003]

One of the more thought-provoking movies in a long time. N. Cage has one of his best roles ever, and makes the most of it. He deserves a nomination for an Oscar, as does M. Steep and C. Cooper. Very original, strange but one of those movies that actually challenges you to think about life, all our options and opportunities in life and how we use them or let them slide by.

Oh by the way, it's also very funny! Very clever to start while "Being John Malkovich" is still being filmed.

The Last Waltz (1978)

Delightfully surprised

[10/10 · 21 December 2002]

I happened across this on Turner Movie Channel the other evening. It was shown in widescreen. I didn't recognize the musicians at first, and then I saw this great drummer who was also singing, and really belting out the songs! It was Leroy Helm, who played Loretta Lynn's Daddy in "Coal Miner's Daughter".

Then I heard the interviewer, and I recognized that voice. "Damn, that's Martin Scorsese!" I said out loud.

I was sorry I came in late on this, because the music was fantastic, and it was a thoroughly fascinating documentary about rock music. There were so many late 70's rock stars singing, and I was just sorry that Linda Ronstadt and Kris Kristofferson weren't part of it.

Igby Goes Down (2002)

Ice Cold

[2/10 · 4 November 2002]

I went into the theatre expecting to be either entertained or challenged in my thinking. Nothing happened. I take it that this was a comedy, a black comedy. But even in black comedies, people laugh. No one laughed. People with full buckets of popcorn were getting up in the middle of the movie and leaving. It had occurred to me to do the same, something I have never done. I found nothing insightful or even artistic about this, unless you think that walking out of a theatre feeling chilled to the bone by a set of characters you wanted to have some feelings for, but you can find no reason to feel for them -- if this is artistic, then art sucks. This was not art. It was a self-indulgent wallowing in pity for shallow, spoiled people who deserved no pity.

If you waste your money on this movie, as I did, don't say you weren't warned. Again, I had high expectations of this film. God, I hate film reviewers who think anything ice cold must certainly be art.

P.S.: There was only one good performance in the entire movie, laden with great performers -- that of Kieran Culkin. So what were Susan Sarandon, Ryan Phillipe, Claire Danes and Jeff Goldblum thinking when they got into this?

The Others (2001)

The Ultimate Haunted House-Ghost Story!

[10/10 · 2 November 2002]

I have for a long time had a lot of problems with the haunted house or ghost-in-the-house type movie. There is generally way too much screaming, gore, special effects, and worst of all, these movies tend to take their ridiculous premises way too seriously.

The exception has always been "Poltergeist", because so much warmth and humor was part of the story of a middle-class American family under siege in their nice suburban home, and because it definitely had some really scary moments. Thank you, Mr. Spielberg, one more time!

So, when I first saw "The Others", I was not expecting much. Was I ever blown away! First: Nicole Kidman gives one of the best performances of her career in this movie -- better even than "To Die For" -- so why was she nominated for an Oscar for that pathetic role in "Moulin Rouge"? Second: This movie throws out all the other haunted house and ghost story cliches. The premise of the story is actually quite simple and believable if you believe in ghosts, and it cannot be repeated here. See it and enjoy it. There is no blood or gore. There are, quite frankly, no special effects. It is just a great story, within the confines of a ghost story and a haunted house setting, with a dynamite twist ending, with fantastic acting from the entire cast (especially Kidman as the strictly religious, super-control-freak mother of two very different children, and kudos to the little girl who portrays the daughter who knows too much and to the elderly lady who plays the wise nanny-housekeeper who also knows more than the mother). Fantastic direction, moody cinematography and spooky music.

This was chilling, shocking and kept me on the edge of my seat throughout, and I was watching it in my own home! I saw it again tonight, and it still is every bit as fascinating and chilling.

Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001)

overrated

[6/10 · 24 October 2002]

OK, the cinematography and the art direction and sets, combine to give a fascinating backdrop to a promising mystery-horror story. But the story is, frankly, stupid. And the plot is extremely slow, ponderous and pretentious. Often you feel you've seen that gloomy scene before, and before, and before. And when it's all over, you wonder: What the hell was that really all about? Was it worth 2 1/2 hours of "mystery" only to learn something that is ridiculous?

Titanic (1997)

This movie is FAR better than the imdb rating!

[10/10 · 8 October 2002]

Previously, I wrote that I loved "Titanic", cried at its ending (many times over), and I'm a guy in his 60's. I also wondered about why this great movie, which won so many awards and was applauded by so many critics, was given only a 7.0 rating by imdb.com users.

Well, I looked at the breakdown of the user ratings. While 29.0% of all votes gave it a 10 rating, 10.7% gave it a 1 rating. These 10.7% of these irrational imdb users, in effect, pulled the overall rating down to 7.0.

In my previous comments, I blamed this very unusual voting pattern (a sudden surge in 1 ratings, with a high 10 rating, dropping only gradually and then suddenly reversing course and jumping at the 1 rating level) on only one thing: hatred for Leonardo DiCaprio. Believe me, I've tuned into enough chat rooms to see the banter by young people (young men, mostly), who defame him left and right. They absolutely hate the man, and they will have no part in giving him any credit in "Titanic". (To answer one other user: I am NOT talking about someone who just really doesn't like the movie that much, and gave it a 5 or a 6, etc. Everyone has, and is entitled to, his/her own taste. But no one can convince me that the imdb rating of only 7.0 overall for "Titanic", pulled to that level by an inordinate number of ridiculous 1 ratings, is a fair reflection of the overall motion picture.)

Let me demonstrate my point by comparing the imdb user voting pattern of "Titanic" to 5 randomly chosen box office and critical "bombs" (there are many more, but these 5 will prove my point). "Heaven's Gate" (1980) was pulled from the theaters quickly after a very poor box office showing, and imdb voters' ratings were: 23.2% 10 ratings and 9.2% 1 ratings (overall rating of 6.1). "Big Top Pee-wee" (1988) got 4.3% 10 ratings and 9.9% 1 ratings (overall rating of 4.5). "Cat People" (1982) got 6.1% 10 ratings and 2.6% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.8). "Blind Date" (1987) got 3.0% 10 ratings and 2.8% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.3). "Jumpin' Jack Flash" (1986) got 4.4% 10 ratings and 3.7% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.2). WHAT DO ALL OF THESE FILMS HAVE IN COMMON WITH "TITANIC"? ALL OF THE PERCENTAGES OF THEIR 1 RATINGS ARE LOWER !!!! THAN "TITANIC", AND NONE OF THESE STINKERS EVER WAS NOMINATED FOR A SINGLE AWARD. Again, "Titanic" got 10.7% 1 ratings! Compare that to the other 5 movies I just mentioned.

Can there be any explanation other than the hatred of Leo factor?

On the Waterfront (1954)

Powerful every time I see it

[10/10 · 3 October 2002]

Back in the early 1950's, after a movie had run its course at the theaters, it did not go to video. Nor did it go on prime-time TV, as that concept came up many years later. Instead, they put it on afternoon TV, sometimes around dinner time. Well, that's when I'd come home from high school, and got to enjoy free black and white classics such as "High Noon" and "On the Waterfront".

It made a moviefan of me for life. I remember the effect of "On the Waterfront", as I remember thinking about Terry Malloy in that final scene, "Wow, that guy's got guts! I wish I could be like him." Being just a typical Midwestern teen, I didn't know who Marlon Brando was, but I just was fascinated by this life of these good and bad people, on the tops of buildings and in the cold, wet streets and alleys of this far-away place near the waterfront.

Now, every time I watch it, years later, I still love it. Yes, there is definitely an attempt to make Terry into a Christ-figure at the end. That's no coincidence that he stumbles from having been beaten to a pulp, to walk and carry a hook on his shoulders, to lead others to a better life. (In the book by Budd Schulberg, by the way, Terry disappears after testifying and what is thought to be his body is found floating in a barrel of lime. But he has become a legend on the waterfront.) I love the powerful Elmer Bernstein score (glaring for our present tastes, but back then, exactly what people expected to hear during a drama -- you've got to wonder what a future generation will say about the constant replays of fairly irrelevant pop and rap songs as themes during most movies today, dramatic or comedy).

And being raised in a Catholic home, I found Father Barry to be a great dramatic figure, one of the only times I saw a priest portrayed as a gritty, brave, heroic person, not afraid to mix it up with the common folks in the parish. He smoked, drank and slugged it out. And he was not afraid to die for the right reason. Folks, that's true Christianity at work. And that's powerful.

A classic. A must-see. 10/10

Harold and Maude (1971)

One of my all-time favorites

[10/10 · 2 October 2002]

I watched "Harold and Maude" again, for the first time in about a year, and it is still fresh and uplifting.

* SPOILER ALERT * Harold's morbid attempts at suicide to either get the attention of, or irritate the hell out of, his otherwise disconnected mother, are progressively hilarious. Maude's love for life and variety, even for the zaniest, most illegal ways of expressing her independence and love for a free life, is hilarious, especially in the earliest scenes showing jaw-dropping reactions from Harold.

In short, this is one funny, touching movie, and it is liberating, at that. Thanks to Hal Ashby for some classy direction, to Bud Cort and the late Ruth Gordon for two excellent comic roles, and to Cat Stevens (now Yusuf Islam) for great, uplifting and relevant lyrics and music.

A classic. 10/10

40 Days and 40 Nights (2002)

Sorry I wasted my time on this...

[2/10 · 28 September 2002]

Aside from some nice acting from Josh Hartnett and Shannyn Sossamon (a stunning beauty who happens to also be a good actress), this movie (I rented the video) was a total waste. The premise is incredibly stupid. The motivation is ridiculous. The entire story is hard to believe. The bit about the main character's brother being a "Catholic priest in training" is completely out of left field. I have already wasted more time writing this than the film merits.

One Hour Photo (2002)

Oscar Nom for Robin?

[8/10 · 15 September 2002]

This film was far better than I expected.

*** SPOILER ALERT, SORT-OF *** What could have easily, on a number of occasions, turned into a story filled with cliches and formulas seen a dozen times before in movies about psychologically disturbed people, the director-writer chooses instead (to his credit) to make this a study of a character, with actual character development. I expected, so many times, that a certain standard Hollywood plot twist would naturally happen, but it did not. I thank the writer-director for such inventiveness and restraint. Robin Williams, along with the script and direction, takes what would otherwise be a two-dimensional character (Sy Parrish, or "Sy the Photo Guy"), and develops him (pun intended) in various ways. The most important way is to allow the audience see the peels coming off the seemingly rigid outside of an otherwise fragile, insecure, soft-in-the-middle, and pathetic human being. But Williams is so good at this role, that we even are allowed to feel empathy (not sorry, not pity) for this lonely man, this truly disturbed, isolated individual. And we even get to understand him, thanks to the writer!, quite the opposite of what we expect when Hollywood uses a plot about a dangerous person. This is not an evil person -- it is someone who desperately needs to feel loved and needed. Then two events shatter his entire self-made life, and he becomes downright scary.

When Sy's isolation and how he deals with it, is depicted throughout, the Simon and Garfunkel song "I Am a Rock" somehow comes to mind. Also, early in the film, when we first see Sy sitting alone watching "The Simpsons" (a cartoon family, just as unreal as the seemingly ideal family he develops in his own mind), and as the camera pulls back, we see the extent of his obsession and madness. But it reminds you of the Robert DeNiro character rehearsing at his home in "The King of Comedy".

I think that Robin Williams should expect at least a nomination for best actor. He is superb as someone who is both chilling and frightening and also who needs to be loved and treated with care. His Sy Parrish might end up being as famous as Norman Bates and Travis Bickel.

Pi (1998)

Kinda boring

[4/10 · 14 September 2002]

OK, I was told that this was a movie I HAD to see, so I rented it. I found it fascinating at the start (paranoia mixed with genius, math mixed with religion, great black and white cinematography, etc.), but after a while, it just got repetitive, pointless and damned boring! I kept waiting for some new insight, some resolution, some reason for this film to be made. I waited in vain.

Avalon (1990)

One of my favorites

[9/10 · 5 September 2002]

"Avalon" remains one of my favorite movies. Its excellent cast, including Joan Plowright, Aidin Quinn, Kevin Pollack, Lou Jacobi, Elizabeth Perkins and Elijah Wood (11 years before he starred in "The Lord of the Rings"), is headed by an outstanding, distinguished and heartbreaking performance by Armin Mueller-Stahl.

Mueller-Stahl plays the central character, Sam Krichinsky, who sees the glory of his youth as a Jewish immigrant from Poland who comes to live in Baltimore, as that glory gradually disintegrates to due family disputes over relatively small but important issues. The once close-knit immigrant Krichinsky family splinters over the years, the second generation changes their names to Kaye and Kirk to be more "American", and even the remaining family units talk less to one another, choosing to watch TV instead.

While this sounds grim, it is filled with humor -- I couldn't help thinking of "Everybody Loves Raymond", especially during the spats between Sam's wife (Plowright) and her daughter-in-law (Perkins). There are scenes that make you laugh while you grimace, such as the turkey-cutting decision by Sam that forever alienates his older brother, played wonderfully by Lou Jacobi.

My own family has gone through these splintering events, and to those of us who are younger, we consider the issues so miniscule that we cannot understand why any brother would stop associating with another over them. But it happened, more than once. Also, members of our family have split angrily over the spelling of our last name, some trying to make it "less German".

My oldest son said this was the saddest movie he had ever seen, and he thought it was excellent.

Of special note is the way director-writer Barry Levinson teams with composer Randy Newman, who previously worked together on "The Natural", to come up with a number of scenes very similar the final scene in "The Natural". And working with them is the great cinematographer Allen Daviau, who also gave us three of Spielberg's earlier best movies, in terms of cinematography: "E.T.", "The Color Purple", and "Empire of the Sun".

Excellent film, sure to tug your heartstrings, if you have feelings for your extended family members.

Deuces Wild (2002)

Forgettable

[3/10 · 4 September 2002]

I did not expect much from this movie, but I rented it mainly because it had such good actors as Brad Renfro, Stephen Dorff and James Franco in it. But their talents were put to waste. The script is hard to follow and has few moments of interest, and the direction is horrible --one scene suddenly ends, another begins, and there's no segue! No reason! Even during the fight scenes, with all members of both gangs dressed and coiffed almost identically, you see one guy hit another, then suddenly you're watching another fight, and just as suddenly, you're back to the first one. It is easy to lose track of who is fighting whom, what the hell this movie is really about, or why it was even made. 3/10, and that's because I gave it an E for effort.

Titanic (1997)

Object of a massive hate campaign

[10/10 · 2 September 2002]

I am aghast at the comments of others on this site about "Titanic". A sense of outright hatred spews forth. Finally, one commenter admits it: Leonardo DiCaprio was in it, and therefore the imdb ratings for the movie were doomed. I have been to a couple of chatrooms where these teenagers go on and on about their hatred for Leonardo DiCaprio. A very personal hatred, as if they know him.

Now, go to the imdb vote break-down. Notice that a very strange thing happens. The most votes are 10's, then 9's, then 8's, etc. Except that a very large number -- 10.7% of the voters -- gave it a 1 rating! Really, no matter how much fault anyone may find with the movie, it is by no means a 1! That's ridiculous. And it is done by the DiCaprio haters, in order to sink the overall rating of the movie (which, at 7.0, still isn't bad, and can you imagine how much higher it would be if the 10.7% voted with their heads and not their hate-filled hearts?). Oh yes, I know that some of you will say that James Cameron's script wasn't that good, or that he got some details wrong, blah, blah, blah. But the 10.7% is all about Leo -- nothing to do with Cameron or reality.

Just to let you know: I am a 60-year-old man, and I found the movie "Titanic" to be one of the most touching and spectacular that I have ever seen. I love it! I have seen it multiple times, and the final scene of the lovers in the ocean makes me tear up every time. As for DiCaprio, he has a bad reputation for his temperment, as does Russell Crowe and many others, but DiCaprio's acting has always been first rate, and "Titanic" is no exception. Just see "This Boy's Life" and "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" -- no second rate actor can do what he did in these films.

In short, let's not count on imdb voters as a guide for the upcoming "Gangs of New York". No doubt, the Leo-haters will be out in force, dragging down its ratings, too.

One question to the 10.7%: What horrible thing did this guy DiCaprio do to you personally?

The Sweetest Thing (2002)

Pretty Trash

[2/10 · 30 August 2002]

I can't believe some viewers actually liked this! I love "There's Something About Mary", which this movie is trying to one-up, and does a lousy job of it. Is this supposed to be a "chick-flick" version of the Farrelly brothers? If so, it bombed. About the only good things about it were, from my male point of view, the gorgeous women playing the leads, especially Cameron Diaz and Christina Applegate. They made it a little easier to watch, but face it, this is brainless and not funny! So what we have, then, is pretty trash.

Even the brazen attempt to be even grosser than "Something About Mary"'s zipper versus the "beans and frank", with an even more unbelievable oral sex turned into a neighborhood carnival by "getting stuck", is so crude and so ridiculous, it reminded me of "Deep Throat", not "Something About Mary". "Mary" was sidesplittingly funny. "Throat" was stupid and trashy, and so is "The Sweetest Thing" (most misleading title ever).

2/10, a high vote compared to the 1/10 I wanted to give it, simply because of Diaz and Applegate, who were always good to look at.

High Crimes (2002)

If not for the acting, disappointing

[4/10 · 29 August 2002]

Because this came out during the summer of 2002, against big competition, I thought this would be better. The acting by Ashley Judd is extraordinary, as she continues to prove that she can handle much more complex roles than those given her thus far. Morgan Freeman's role is almost in a supporting actor category, but his change-of-pace character (which was probably originally written for a white man to play a white trash character) is refreshing. Freeman always adds zest and depth to every character he inhabits. Too bad he didn't have more screen time.

However, the problem is primarily the plot. It seems to be a combination of two pretty standard Hollywood storylines, merged for a "twist" at the end. By the time the movie was over, my questions were: "What was this really about? Why did I spend time watching it? If not for the acting of Judd and Freeman, was this worth my time?" The answer to the final question is, unfortunately, no.

The Jerk (1979)

Funnier with time!

[8/10 · 29 August 2002]

I saw "The Jerk" several times on the screen when it first released and then I have watched it either as a video or on TV (the butchered version, where the dog "Shithead" gets changed to "Stupid", etc.). I always thought it was funny, if not more than a little stupid. Even so, it's been quite a while since I've seen the original version.

Well, about a week or so ago, my 14-year-old grandson asked me if I wanted to watch "Joe Dirt" with him, and based upon the reviews I had read, I wanted to say no, but I could tell it was important to him. Well, "Joe Dirt" is by no means that great, but I was amazed that I found myself laughing at it. And after the movie was over, it occurred to me that, if my grandson liked this story-of-a-loser's-life-as-told-by-the-loser, he would at least enjoy "The Jerk", which uses a similar plot device. Of course, "The Jerk" is not at all as raunchy and gross as "Joe Dirt", which tries to emulate the Farrelly brothers. But I still had hope that my grandson might enjoy it, so I rented it so we could watch it together.

My grandson roared! I have never heard him laugh so loud and so often while watching any movie. He could not contain himself during the scenes in Navin Johnson's old shack of a home, where he believed he grew up as a part of a poor but close African-American family in Mississippi. He loved the part when the crazy guy picks out Navin's name from the telephone book by pure chance, and tries to shoot him, but Navin, in his stupidity, thinks the guy is really trying to shoot the oil cans right next to him, because the crazed sniper (M. Everett Walsh) keeps accidentally hitting them when he misses Navin. And when Navin finally gets the courage to be intimate with Marie (Bernadette Peters), and as we are all expecting an amorous kiss, he licks the side of her face! OK, OK, it's stupid, but it's also hilarious! My grandson was roaring with laughter throughout, including the bit about "And I don't need anything! Well, I need this thing here. But I don't need anything else! Well, I need this..."

"The Jerk" made me laugh all over again. It has become funnier with age, even though some of the jokes are dated. (By the way, even a classic comedy such as "Blazing Saddles" has become dated due to its lame ending.)

And I noticed that some reviewers actually find "The Jerk" to be a racist movie. Why? Because of the one scene in which the N-word was used and turned into great satire? They must have watched a totally different film than the one I have watched over the years. Or has political correctness totally gone crazy and lost all sense of humor?

Amélie (2001)

Cotton Candy, not the real stuff

[6/10 · 17 August 2002]

I cannot understand why so many users are raving about this film. Yes, it is original. Yes, the lead actress is cute and holds your attention. Yes, the other characters are bizarre and sometimes funny.

But REALLY !!!! This is one of the highest rated films on imdb? I have been a movie geek for almost 50 years, and this did NOT even remotely jump out at me as an all-time great film. It is enjoyable fluff, nothing more. Did it make me feel good about life? No. I already was OK when I watched it, and it didn't move me, touch me in any real way. I expected so much more, from all the reviews. I was disappointed.

It is like cotton candy as opposed to homemade chocolate. French cinema has produced much better than this. Jules & Jim, Z, 400 Blows, Manon of the Spring, to name a few.

The Last Seduction (1994)

Reverse Version of "Body Heat"?

[7 July 2002]

This was completely fascinating, the tale of the ultimate bitch. Or was she the only one? I recall that Kathleen Turner played a very similar person in "Body Heat". But "Body Heat" told about an ultimate bitch from the victim's perspective. "The Last Seduction" tells about the same type of person, only this time from her perspective.

Excellent movie, for a small-budget film. The acting by Linda Fiorentino is perfect. You love to hate her, much the same as Kathleen Turner's character.

The Verdict (1982)

The Best of Newman

[16 June 2002]

I have seen this movie, on screen and as a video, many times. Each time, it gets better. This is no doubt the best acting by Paul Newman in his career. Why he didn't get the Oscar for this role, but instead got it for the lackluster "The Color of Money", is beyond me. The movie is actually about redemption, or the attempt to be redeemed.

His interpretation of Frank Galvin, a desperate, conniving, down-to-the-last-case attorney, is fascinating and totally convincing. And he has a fantastic supporting cast -- from Jack Warden as his partner, Charlotte Rampling as his chance for romantic redemption, Milo O'Shea as the corrupt judge, Lindsay Crouse as his surprising ace-up-his-sleeve, and most of all, in a landmark supporting actor role, James Mason as the seemingly distinguished and respected defense attorney.

And I found the direction by Sidney Lumet to be, once again, outstanding. Lumet has such a long list of great movies that you wonder why he has never won an Oscar or been given an AFI Lifetime Achievement award.

This is a riveting movie -- about the law, but mainly about the flawed nature of the human beings who are entrusted with it. Please hear Newman, as Frank Galvin, on his last, crippled, despairing leg, give the summation to the case. It needs to be carved in marble somewhere. David Mamet, who wrote the screenplay, deserves accolades for how he was able to hand Paul Newman such a moving summation. The summation is about life, not just the law. It is a masterpiece, worth seeing the entire movie for.

Most of all, it is Newman's Finest Hour.

Helter Skelter (1976)

Good TV Movie -- and Totally Accurate!

[26 May 2002]

I am appalled to read that there are imdb.com members who actually think that Charles Manson and his "Family" were prosecuted because he was a hippie or a flower-child. He was neither. He is neither to this day. Have any of these idiots seen the TV interviews with Manson (by Diane Sawyer, I think) a while back? It would creep you out, as it shows how completely mad he is, to this very day. And his anger is creepy, too, and I thought he was going to physically harm the female interviewer at one point. When told of some of the things that the now older and wiser "family members" said of him (that he asked them to kill for him, that he instructed them in detail, and that they no longer have any regard for him), he just laughed and derided them as getting to be "old broads". This is a flower child?

I've done enough reading of various books and articles about Manson. He was the product of our institutions -- the one point on which he is correct. From childhood on, he never lived a normal life, always an institutionalized life. Then he took on this Messiah persona to impress the only people who were impressed by him -- young teenaged girls or other young women from homes where they felt unwanted. He literally rented them out as sexual favors to his biker pals, whom he was trying to impress and keep on his side. This was a flower child? Hardly! He has, and still has, a twisted but skillful mind.

As for the stupid premise that Buguliosi "framed him", have these people who write such nonsense read his book? Buguliosi documented, and this was affirmed in such books as "The Family", that Manson actually liked his prosecutor and respected him, and said so, even though there is good evidence that he wanted him dead. Like I say, Manson is a twisted person.

This TV movie is good drama, and totally accurate. Unlike others, I would like to see it redone for the big screen. I think the entire story of Manson's life and of his "family" and what they did to others at the Spahn Ranch before the murders of Sharon Tate and the others, needs to be told. Maybe bring people up to date with interviews with this monster on TV. No, not Oliver Stone! But to tell it somewhat in the way "In Cold Blood" was transferred from book to movie.

I expect to get nasty, threatening replies from Charlie's idiot disciples. That's right, you are all whacked-out idiots for thinking that he is anything but a monster.