billymac72 Reviews

Rock & Roll (1995– )

Self-Important But Absorbing & Focused

[7/10 · 30 September 2005]

Originally broadcast on PBS, this deadly serious, Ken Burns-ish, take on the evolution of rock and roll manages to deliver some incredibly absorbing archival footage and interviews presented in a very concise, logical manner. Far superior than the other rock n' roll documentary that aired around the same time, this series places such icons as the Beatles, Chuck Berry & Elvis Presley more firmly within the fabric of the other music of the time. The history is mostly told through racially-themed observations, often at the expense of some white artists, such as the always-overlooked Bill Haley, who doesn't garner a single mention, let alone any credit. While one would be careless to avoid the racial importance that rock and roll deserves, the accusation that the Beatles were deliberately poised as "safe" replacements for black music (specifically Motown) is simply lacking merit.

Most any rock fan will find issue not so much with what's included, but what's omitted. Heavy metal is given as much slight mention as Haley.

Other problems arise as the series approaches the modern day, devoting much too much time by lavishing over-significance on such schlock as the Beastie Boys, as well as the overstated influence of reggae (as briefly seen in such bands the Police, the Talking Heads and The Clash). Racism (as well as gay-bashing) is credited yet again, this time for the ultimate rejection of disco. Alternative/grunge music - being all the craze at the time - is hoisted into the spotlight by the final episode, presented as some kind of ultimate culmination of the rebel ethic began by all those who proceeded them. Just my opinion, but this type of "history" gets so complicated and uncertain at this point that the film would've been much better served halting it's anthropology around the pre-disco/punk period of 1975 or '76. Rock has been less easier to define since then.

Still, the series is at its best covering the post-Buddy Holly/pre-Monterey Pop era, when rock not only demonstrated some of its greatest artistry, but - it could be argued - its highest diversity. Here, ample time & affect is given to the pop, folk, soul, surf & psychedelic movements. Ultimately, for all its faults, "Rock and Roll" is a terrific primer for the uninitiated, and a wonderful conversation piece for die-hards.

Futureworld (1976)

Boy, have we got a vacation for you!

[5/10 · 22 March 2005]

How great "Futureworld" could have been. Had Yul Brenner, or even Richard Benjamin for that matter, been fully committed to this sequel, the old charm may have been recaptured in this ambitious continuation.

The problem begins with Yul Brenner's Gunslinger character (conceptually a robotic rehash of his "Magnificent Seven" role). In some recycled footage from the original "Westworld," we're reminded very early on in "Futureworld" how Brenner's intimidating presence in that earlier film contributed to its overall effectiveness. With the introduction of this footage so early in the film, we're suckered into expecting fulfillment of a promise that is never delivered. Unfortunately, this footage only serves to provide Blythe Danner's character with a motive for reproducing our favorite Gunslinger in her dreams, where he has strangely become her fantasy lover. By dangling this vision of the Gunslinger in front of our faces, our disappointment is only made greater by it being yanked away. The fact that it serves no discernible purpose in forwarding the plot only adds further insult. In doing so, the filmmakers are telling us that our desire to see the Gunslinger return is really of very little importance.

Of course, Brenner's brief presence may have been related to contractual obligations, agents, and such other fun Hollywood stuff that make his scene feel oddly removed from the main story. That said, "Futureworld" does have its merits (apart from reminding us that the original was far better). Even though Peter Fonda can be awfully wooden in his style, he & Blythe Danner are kind of fun and freewheeling together in that "Heart to Heart" kind of way. The story, which owes a lot to "The Stepford Wives," is dated but still engaging. As in the original, the entire idea of Delos – essentially a fantasy world without consequence - is still an engaging idea worth exploring.

But here lay more problems with "Futureworld." In "Westworld," half of the fun was following Richard Benjamin & James Brolin as they experienced the fantasy. Before things go haywire, we see them break out of jail, engage in showdowns and fend off a barroom brawl. In a minor subplot, we occasionally follow a middle-aged, oafish character in Medievalworld as he tends to his palace and maidens fair, only to be actually slain by a Black Knight robot gone wacko, the first of the major malfunctions in the park. "Futureworld" is very arbitrary in its use of such devices, and typically does not follow through with their development. Futureworld itself is somewhat of a disappointment it should be said; mainly a simulated rocket ride, a swinging lounge with some nifty gadgets and a swank apartment with shag carpeting. The illusion is never made real, and only seems secondary to the plot. While the oaf visiting Medivalworld in the original served to humanize the tragic fate of this first victim, the Japanese businessmen in "Futureworld" are developed straight into a dead end (a subplot involving their smuggling of a camera into the resort is remarkably forgotten).

An earlier poster imaginatively suggested that Clark, Harry's faceless robot servant, could have been used to revive the Gunslinger by revealing his true identity towards the film's third act. I think that would've been great! But as it is, the relationship of the mechanic to his machine is also a road not fully traveled. The oddness of such lines like, "don't get involved with people! It's always the same," or "the outside world wouldn't understand, you and I," speaks toward a strange bond with hardware that is off-putting - in a very creepy way - precisely because the concept is abandoned in the story by the character of Harry himself. When Clark is left deserted in his behind-the-scenes corner of Delos' underground, I felt as confused as much as his computer-chipped face seemed to convey. And then there's Harry's bizarre explanation as to Clark's origins: "he was one of the original iron men in all the orgies at Romanworld. He's seen a lot, Clark has." Apart from the obvious dilemmas (moral and otherwise) regarding robot-human sex, does this somehow make Clark an empathetic victim? What consequences would our empathy for Clark have upon the main plot involving human replacement??

As someone pointed out, "Futureworld" is a nice companion piece to "Westworld," and on that level, it's fairly enjoyable despite its flaws. There are certainly glimmers of the old "Westworld" charm to be savored, but its ultimately a tease for the real thing.

The Right Stuff (1983)

The Stuff of Dreams

[10 December 2003]

I saw `The Right Stuff' at the tender age of 10, alone in a giant theater on a rainy Sunday afternoon. I consider it one of my great all time film experiences, perhaps the first moment I comprehended how much I actually loved film & what a part of my life it truly was & is. Seriously. I honestly remember mulling over this epiphany as a pre-teen, sitting comfortably in a sparsely-filled movie house, completely enthralled with not only my independence as a lone audience member, but also by my enthrallment over this strange story with an astronaut's mentality at its center. I was a slightly strange kid. But, it's a slightly strange movie.

`The Right Stuff' no longer holds the appeal for me as it once did. How could it?? I'm older, more discerning & critical of film, but also more knowledgeable about the history represented through this story. I know that most of it is fiction. I can argue all day & night about film's responsibility to be historically accurate (my philosophy more or less boils down to, `well...it depends.' Nice, eh? Years of schooling helped me come up with that one). I guess in the case of "The Right Stuff," I take the inaccuracy personally. The astronauts were heroes of mine as a kid and when I was old enough to understand the actual depth of their stories, I guess I just came to love the real-life drama over the spiritual, and fictional, context Kauffman presents them in here. Just a few historical notes:

a) The `fireflies' John Glenn saw from his capsule window was actually urine emptying from his catheter into space. The effect was duplicated time & again by the astronauts that followed. Why the film would want to juxtapose this event with the tribal fire of the Aborigines is beyond me.

b) There simply was not as much doubt about Gus Grissom's splashdown snafu investigation as was portrayed. Even though Fred Ward is great in the role, it makes appear as if Grissom was a brute, which he wasn't. He was a very well respected engineer amongst the NASA staff & kept himself highly involved in the development of the capsule. The film represents this in an off-the-cuff remark about having a window & explosive hatch (get ready for the irony folks!). In fact, NASA was so impressed with Grissom, even after losing his capsule, that he was granted the first spot in the Gemini program as well as the Apollo program in which he died in a fire. Anyone who's familiar with the Apollo 1 story knows that he was tirelessly in the process of testing the capsule's equipment when the fire broke out. c) Gordon Cooper & Grissom & Yeager were never at Edwards Air Force Base together at the same time. The timelines are completely out of whack. In fact, Pancho Barnes' Happy Bottom club had burnt down long before Cooper was ever there. More than that, Barnes was a good friend of Cooper's family & he had known her since a child. The film shows her berating him for his cockiness. Didn't happen, at least not there. d) Sally Rand, whose famous fan dance is recreated here, was really, really old by the time the astronauts are shown watching her show. She did, however perform this routine well past her prime in actual life, but wouldn't have looked nearly as good as she does here. e) The astronauts not represented in depth here (Carpenter, Slayton & Shirra) also had fascinating stories. Too bad they're given so little time here. f) Why isn't Kennedy, a huge supporter of the space program, represented at all?? The political figures that are here (LBJ, Ike, nameless others) are completely clownish and cartoony. The press corps seems entirely robotic.

I know I'm leaving out some major stuff, but that's good enough for now. So, yes, I am not such a hard case that I can't still enjoy `The Right Stuff' for its entertainment value, and it even manages to get a few things correct (e.g., the testing sequences & press conference scene are great & Glenn did actually scold Shepherd & the others for their carousing). For pure accuracy, nothing has yet come close to `Apollo 13' in my opinion (`From Earth to the Moon' was excellent, but didn't convey the professionalism in quite as interesting a manner). `The Right Stuff' is, indeed, an epic. It's a brilliant piece of storytelling, albeit with some laughable earnest dialogue, but welcome comedic relief. It's even a nice metaphor for American ingenuity, ruggedness & spirit too. I still respect and accept the film on those levels. But every time I see it, I am transported back to an old theater in 1983 where I watched it in earnest, feeling like an adult, and quickly realize once again that I will always love it for that cherished day.

The Kids Are Alright (1979)

This is where it all ends

[7 October 2003]

This is THE must see rock film. I can't think of any others that compare. The Stones' `Gimme Shelter' is great for reasons quite different than the music contained therein (of which the live material isn't very good). `Monterey Pop,' which features the Who, is certainly my favorite concert film from the era because of the culture it captured on its frames, as well as the eclecticism. The Hendrix performance alone makes that event historic. But the `Monterey' film is very passive & observational. In one sense, that is why I adore it so much, in another, more intellectual sense, it is lacking a philosophy about the material it depicts. I suppose the philosophy is really to document & be intentionally unobtrusive (to the viewers & actual subjects), which in my opinion is really a type of non-philosophy. The Kids Are Alright, however, epitomizes a certain condensed, irreverent and bombastic type of rock and roll that Pete Townshend has always been the ideal spokesman for. This is perhaps the only rock and roll film that is solely about the raw power and visceral effects of this music. Its primary goal is to capture that essence and to show you - not tell you - that the Who were the greatest rock & roll band ever. Of course, this is an age old debate between Stones, Who & Beatles fans. What's the answer?? I don't know as I love them all, and I really don't care either. The ability of this film to make you forget about those other bands, however, is undeniable. Watch this film in the proper setting & you'll be convinced, at least for the moment, that the Who were the best.

`The Kids Are Alright' is not an entirely professional job. Scenes sometimes present themselves through hatchet editing & sloppy placement. It is non-chronological and choppy. Interviews range from nonsensical to pretentious. In the case of Keith Moon, we believe that he never took anything seriously and appears to be caught consistently interchanging the personalities of entirely different people. Roger Daltry has surprisingly very, very little to say. John Entwistle - not as surprisingly - has even less to say & remains in the shadows throughout. But what would otherwise be considered technical movie shortcomings are exactly what the Who excel in; the texture of this film is much like the Who's music itself and therefore highly appropriate. This is why we're only treated to flashes of seriousness before the façades are dropped and the kinetic circus begins anew. While bits & pieces of the Who dynamic can perhaps be articulated, the band's aura existed first & foremost in their music and physical energy (there is a great clip of Townshend patiently listening to the intricate analysis of his music by a German television rock critic. After the critic finishes his exhaustive treatise, Townshend mulls over his possible answer for a moment & finally responds, `yeah.'). The intellectualism, rebellion, trendiness, wildness and downright punk-ishness of the Who is all captured here in its full Moon Era glory.

I would definitely encourage younger music lovers & musicians to watch this, draw comparisons & ponder the direction rock and roll has taken. Is the Dave Matthews Band our generation's answer to the Who? If it is, please wake me when the funeral for rock has ended so we can start over again, thank you very much.

Until just recently, I didn't realize that the `Baba O'Reilly' and `Won't Get Fooled Again' performances were Moon's last with the band. The director actually had the Who perform these especially for this film as he was unable to find `definitive' versions of the songs in the Who film archive. They are indeed amazing.downright sizzling, actually. Quintessential Who.

Stalag 17 (1953)

3 packs of cigarettes say they never get out of the woods!

[3 February 2003]

I grew up with this movie & have seen it countless times, so admittedly my opinion may be a little biased at this point. Nonetheless, there seems to be an issue with this film that can't be easily ignored. It is precisely the same issue that dogged "Hogan's Heroes" (which, along with "Great Escape," this was loosely based): how can you make fun of war, especially the Nazis? Does making fun of them, or the situation, demonstrate total disregard for the nightmare they inflicted upon generations?

First off, there are a number of well-respected people (philosopher & Holocaust survivor, Viktor Frankl and even Mel Brooks come to mind) who believe humor, by virtue of its freedom, is a powerful threat against the villainous fools of this world. Not to mention, humor has a therapeutic value that has been utilized through the most horrendous of circumstances (wartime being one of them - again I refer back to Frankl). "Hogan's Heroes," it could be argued, was irresponsible because it doesn't really portray the true villainy of the Nazis, and the motivations of the POW escapes are extremely implausable (Hogan would casually leave - often through such ridiculous escape devices as a hollowed out tree stump - to attend a Nazi ball with a hot date & inexplicably, willingly return to the camp! What happened to duty?). Apart from showcasing what is perhaps Holden's finest performance, "Stalag 17" IS responsible in its depiction of Nazi terror (at least relative to its own, contained story about a Nazi mole amongst American prisoners.). Watching this as a child, I never thought the POWs had it easy. Their living conditions are cramped, dirty, cold, uncomfortable & deprived (remember that this came out not too long after the war ended, and more than one veteran I've had the opportunity to meet was impressed by the accuracy of the conditions, uniforms, attitudes & lingo. By the way, many of these actors had served themselves, such as the highly decorated Neville Brand). There are no showers, mattresses consist of a pile of straw atop a blanket, and the food is of the watered-down stew and bread variety. I could only hope to have a Harry & The Animal around to help me cope with such a situation!

The commandant (Preminger) is somewhat cartoonish, but he's never shown as anything but cruel (he leaves the two bodies of escapees laying on display in the mud for all of the soldiers to look at; he continually punishes the men by depriving them of luxuries such as a stove - their only source for heat - in the wintertime; he lies and manipulates Geneva representatives and has escapees killed on sight). Does this compare to the terrors of the Holocaust? Of course not. Is it a fairly accurate depiction of German World War II POW camps for enlisted American G.I.s? From what I understand, yes. The soldiers are dedicated to escaping (okay, save for Harry & The Animal's foray into the Russian compound), are smart aleck and defiant to the Germans, entertain each other in highly creative ways and create the feeling of a community (albeit an incarcerated one) that comes off as realistic to me given their circumstances. For the type of movie this is, the details contained herein have always been enough to establish the underlying hardship for me without sacrificing the tone of the plot. This is a truly great film that functions well as a comedy, a mystery-thriller, actioner and drama. There are many different individual stories to be told in any war, and while each example can't possibly encapsulate everything, the stories need to be true at least unto themselves if they are to be told well at all. `Stalag 17' is responsible on those terms.

The Killing (1956)

I think we understand each other okay. Now....beat it!

[31 January 2003]

*************SPOILERS HEREIN****************************************

Okay, there sure are dated touches here and there. What film made 45 years ago doesn't show its age, even if just a little? But there is something special in this film that achieves timelessness. I haven't read or heard what Tarentino's take on this film is, but I understand `Reservoir Dogs' was very much influenced by it. The non-linear storytelling, the failed heist, the divvying of the loot (which Tarentino mainly concentrated on) and the final stand off between the crooks themselves all echo his style. Someone told me that this instantaneous explosion of gunfire amongst criminals is called a `Mexican Standoff.' I'm not sure where that comes from or if it's true, but it makes me wonder if this device doesn't have its origins elsewhere. I've also heard Tarentino was inspired by a scene in a John Woo film as well (if he was, I'm unfortunately not familiar with it). So like Tarentino, `The Killing' has an uneasy tone, snappy dialogue, moments of shock & violence but still manages, above all, to be a heck of lot of fun. So much cool stuff.

I have read several pieces in regard to whether or not Marvin's character is homosexual. To me, this seems pretty self-evident after scanning through the available criticism on the film, but it wasn't so obvious to me the first time I saw it (keep in mind, this subplot is intended to be suggested, not overt. The material was, after all, subject to the rigors of the Hays Code). Of course such richness and variety of characters in `The Killing' is one of its merits. On this issue, I can think of no other reason Marvin would appear at the racetrack drunk, jeopardizing the heist, after he was specifically told he was no longer needed. All he had to do was wait for his cut. His behavior goes beyond any possible jealousy over his small role in the heist, especially when one considers the content of his conversation with Johnny Clay (bedside, no less!). Notably, he sheepishly asks Johnny if he would like to `go away together, just the two of us.' He shows up at the track because he felt chided, despondent and rejected. But even after understanding Marvin's story, the importance of this scene, to me, always functioned as a complete red herring. It's a fascinating choice for a subplot given that it's not integral to the telling of the story, but given the times, quite heavy in subject matter.

Another common question: why would Johnny buy such a lousy suitcase? Clearly, it was panic on the surface, but is that believable given how his character had been developed up to that point? It may have been a time issue. Considering that he went to a second hand, and not a luggage, store in the throes of an emergency, that suitcase may have been all he had to choose from. A recent IMDB reviewer mentioned - almost dismissively in fact - the angle of the `self-destructive loser.' I like this interpretation a lot. To me, I've always found the ending to the `The Killing' oddly satisfying in that crime-never-pays fashion, but beneath its surface always lay something odd & different. This self-destructiveness may be exactly what creates this feeling, especially given Johnny's closing line of resignation, `Ah, what's the difference?' To be fair, this behavior is not totally unjustified either. We do know that Johnny had: 1) done at least a stint or two in prison so couldn't have been all that successful as a crook; 2) a helpless, insecure girlfriend that has been waiting a LONG time for Johnny to make good on his many promises (I guess losers love company); 3) picked up a circle of apple-polishing co-conspirators who were all failures themselves in one way or another (a corrupt cop, a submissive race track teller, a deranged dog breeder - or whatever Nikki was - etc.). Significantly, the only person to suggest any honesty and/or lack of greed, the philosophical Maurice, is also the one spared of death. Johnny's choice in cronies is so poor in fact that his heist becomes an exercise in ineptness. Is it that surprising he would begin to self-destruct, especially once lifelong imprisonment seemed eminent? Moving on.

Timothy Carey's performance is way ahead of his time. The realism he brings to his psychotic killer demonstrates what Brando pulled off in `On the Waterfront,' or at least `The Wild One,' but also suggests the type of unpredictable excitement one would later expect from a Harvey Keitel or even character actors capable of on-the-edge-dangerousness like Peter Stormare (`8mm,' `Fargo'). Even the cadence of his line delivery is so odd and uncomfortable to listen to that it reminds me a little of Andy Garcia or, better yet (!), Christopher Walken. Had he capitalized on his physical lankiness, he may now be remembered as an American Christopher Lee. Carey also played an altogether different character in Kubrick's `Paths of Glory,' so it's clear he had some range, but was sadly seen guest-spotting on such TV tripe (well, for him anyway) as `Charlie's Angels' and `CHiPs' fifteen years later.

Marie Windsor as the ridiculing, controlling, and manipulative wife of passive-aggressive Elisha Cook (whom she physically towers over like something out of the Amazon!) is absolutely fantastic. Her death scene (`it's like a bad joke -gasp! - without the punchline!') is so hammy yet perfectly embodies the quintessential 50s pulp bad girl. Sterling Hayden tries his hand at some wise guy Noir dialogue with amazing success (to Marie Windsor, something like: `I read you like a book: you're a no-good dirty tramp, the kind of dame that would sell out her own grandmother for a piece of fudge - oh, but you're smart along with it. You've got a gret big dollar sign here where most women have a heart!'), and gives one of his best performances.

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

As long as I have the sex & drugs...I can do without rock & roll.

[21 January 2003]

This is one of those films that you can pick up different little subtleties with each consecutive viewing (I would say `The In-Laws' and `Dr. Strangelove' also fall within this class). I first saw Tap perform the hilarious `Christmas with the Devil' on Saturday Night Live around 1984 or so. As much as I liked that appearance, I didn't find this film particularly funny on my first viewing. Having seen this about - oh let's see - at least four times each year for the past 15 years, how is it that I've never, until just recently, noticed David's response to the argument over their latest album cover? Listen closely and you'll hear this:

David: `If we had said, 'yes, she should be forced to smell the glove,' then you'd have a point. But it's all just a joke, isn't it? We're making fun of that sort of thing!'

Nigel: `Well, she should be forced to smell the glove'

David: `Yeah, but just not over and over again.'

Or how about when Duke Fame's manager played by Howard Hessman dismissively tells the band `we'd really love to stand around and talk, but we've gotta get to the lobby and wait for our limo.'

Brilliant! Can I just lay some praise upon Christopher Guest's for a moment? I realize that he wasn't the only brainchild behind this comedy masterpiece, but he has got to be one the most amazing character actors/improv comedians around. He virtually disappears into the parts he plays, hardly resembling one character to the next. Ironically, his actual personal demeanor is extraordinarily mundane and dry - almost faceless in light of the performances he gives. His ensemble films of late (`Waiting for Guffman,' `Best In Show') - yes, mark my word! - are destined to be fondly remembered as comedy classics unto themselves in the years to come. His distinctive improvisation/mockumentary approach (seen in its infancy in `Spinal Tap') is reaching near-perfection at this point, and I can only hope that it continues with the remarkable line-up of players he has assembled over the years.

Funny, I actually had the opportunity to see Spinal Tap live in 1991 (1990?) while in Milwaukee and they were actually a lot better than many - if not most, come to think of it - legitimate bands I've seen over the years. They hilariously spoofed such clichés as the unplugged set, the gimmicky guitar solo, and the flying/superhero rock star (Nigel on uncooperative wires during the `Tonight (I'm Gonna Rock You)' opener). The boys all played their own instruments and handled their own vocals (natch), which begs the question: how much of a fake band is this anyway? Clearly, those who know the world they're spoofing the best are the ones most capable of writing the most effective satire.

As the Spinal Tap legacy has continued, the lines between art and reality have become blurred in some of the strangest & most creative, enjoyable ways. For those looking to delve deeper into the expanding farce, I suggest listening to commentary track on the DVD. It features Guest, McKean and Shearer as Spinal Tap giving their misguided take on the documentary they, surprisingly, found to be a `hatchet job' by filmmaker Marti DiBergi (Rob Reiner, by the way, poking fun at Scorsesse's presence in `The Last Waltz'). Among the other notables clearly chided: Van Halen, The Rolling Stones, Jethro Tull, Yoko Ono, The Troggs, Led Zeppelin and Kiss. As I said earlier, maybe you've gotta know this territory to play along with the gags. I would hate to think a movie this good would require such knowledge, but after reading some of the negative IMDB reviews I have to wonder.

The Exorcist (1973)

Captain Howdy, that's not very nice!

[16 January 2003]

Oh, how people still love to deride this fantastic piece of cinema: `blasphemous;' `too scary;' `dated;' `disgusting;' and for our friends with short attention spans and a low threshold for drama, `boring.' Well, what can I say? I suppose these are the same folks who can't sit still through `2001: A Space Odyssey,' `Citizen Kane' or `Chinatown.' I suppose it takes too much time to sort through all of that nasty subtlety. Better have it all neatly sorted out for you straight away instead of having the reward of discovering new insights with each viewing. Chances are our film-going pals (or should we merely say `consumers') wouldn't dare waste time reading my drivel either, so who am I writing for really? For me, I guess. I'm just a snob who likes to write. As a film lover that passion comes with the territory. So, where was I?

Ah yes, `The Exorcist!' What does it mean to me? (theme paper lovers rejoice!) First of all, I've always been a horror fan. No, wait, I take that back. I like to be scared. But this does not a horror fan make. There are only a handful of horror movies I've found effective, the worst variety being the tongue-and-cheek teen slasher nonsense of `Nightmare on Elm St.' and `Friday the 13th.' Then, of course, there are the closely related out-and-out gore fests that provide the blood & guts simply for the sake of doing so; suspense, logic and character development be damned! Don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude. I can stomach a lot. `The Exorcist' is certainly graphic, but in a way that is necessary for telling the story (`Goodfellas' is another that uses violence as an integral element to its central story). It treats its subject matter with consideration, intelligence and appropriate seriousness. Its characters do not automatically jump to assumptions and neither, likewise, should the audience. The events depicted should represent a challenge of faith and belief, even if it's just on a rhetorical level for those less religiously inclined.

You do not forget the images from this film. What's interesting to me is that those who seem most offended by the images (especially the crucifix scene) are so on a religious basis. Director William Friedkin has stated that audiences will `take from the movie exactly what they bring to it' when interpreting the meaning. I can only speak for myself when I say that `The Exorcist' is ultimately a powerful statement FOR keeping faith and the religiously minded shouldn't shy away from the implications it presents just because it's shocking. I was raised Catholic (even did the Jesuit prep school bit!) and have come to believe that one cannot hold any basis for their faith unless they have put it to the test by inviting challenge and a subsequent struggle for its defense. Being confident in faith requires this – even though it leaves many unanswered questions. Religion is not about being sheltered and unknowledgeable.

The `Version You've Never Seen' included a very telling conversation on the stairwell between the two priests during a break in the exorcism. Merrin basically tells Karras that the demon wants to show us that human beings are animalistic, worthless entities – garbage. Life is meaningless. `The Exorcist' clearly embraces the sanctity of the human condition and its purpose on earth, which is precisely why the possession must be as repulsive and vulgar as possible (the exact opposite of what we value). Otherwise, this challenge of faith is stick-figure and doesn't get at the essence of what could possibly offend the very foundations of the beliefs (whatever that may be) that keep us grounded in our everyday existence. I can't think of much worse than a young, innocent girl uncontrollably violating herself with a central symbol of Christian faith – the crucifix (and don't forget, there are other contributing elements to this scene as well). The actual Jesuit priest who played Fr. Dyer has also stated in interviews that the depiction of such material was highly justified.

Just a few words about `The Version You've Never Seen.' Having never seen film theatrically, I consider it one of the great movie experiences of my life to watch this with a full audience (went twice!). Late on a Saturday night, the place was mobbed with kids and, judging from their reactions, I'm guessing many were seeing it for the first time. Both times I saw it, the same phenomena occurred. Complaints of `boredom' arose midway through the Iraq scenes. Smatterings of laughter broke out during the early possession scenes. Squeamish sounds emanated during the hospital visits. Chalk much of this up to immaturity; it's totally normal and expected for teens to react this way to uncomfortable material. I saw the same reaction to the nudity in `Schindler's List.' Each time during `The Exorcist,' however, one sequence never failed to shut everyone up real quick – the crucifix scene. After that point, the audience as a whole knew this wasn't a joke anymore. From that point on they were rapt. Those thinking that this film, due to its age, doesn't have the ability to scare are simply wrong.

As for the new scenes, some are better than others. The new opening shot of the house and the Virgin Mary statue gave me the chills. I've already mentioned the stairwell dialogue. The `spider walk' was fantastic (I'm glad they cut Reagan with the forked tongue scampering after Chris). The glowing figures on the walls seemed a little intrusive, and the ending was ultimately unnecessary, although interesting. Blatty said that he wanted it in because he didn't want people to `think the devil won.' But I fall hard with Friedkin on this point: `you take what you bring to it.' To me, as with Friedkin, it is clearly a reaffirmation of faith and a rejection of evil. One of the special aspects of the original cut is that it could be interpreted in the other direction, just as with life itself.

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

And their wives...their greedy little wives...

[10 January 2003]

This is certainly my favorite Hitchcock (mmm…'Strangers on a Train' comes pretty close too). It has so many great things going for it that I'm not even sure where to begin. For a film made such a long time ago, the way it holds up today speaks volumes about its power.

I showed this film to my grandmother who, having never seen it, fell in love with the depiction of 40s small town life (the on-location shoot in Santa Rosa really made a difference here. It is in fact a character unto itself.). By the 40s, my grandmother was a schoolteacher/housewife living in Queens and by no means the teenager Charlie is in the movie. But I think for those looking to capture a fairly accurate glimpse of how people spent their time back then, this film will be of great interest. Here we see as world where teens are certainly not the entity they are now and are more or less treated as adults. Where people took to the streets at night for enjoyment with their friends and neighbors instead of sitting in front of TV or a computer. Where people lived a fairly contained, contented life in a place where the local cop might cut you a break just because he knows you.

But this ain't all Frank Capra, baby, it's Hitchcock, and he is definitely making a certain kind of statement about the small town America he found himself fascinated with when he arrived from his native London (this, I think, is his first real American made film). He manipulates us with this great, comfortable, familiar – and accurate! – American atmosphere and shows us something extremely sinister lying-in-wait through the arrival of Uncle Charlie (check out the dark shadow cast by the train carrying Charlie as it pulls in to Santa Rosa). In our modern terminology, I guess one could say that Hitch is showing a world that, while a very nice place, is blanketed in denial. The mother, played by Patricia Collinge, perhaps best personifies this notion to the point where she practically flat-out refuses to believe anything amiss could possibly be happening within her glorious household. She is hysterically happy in an almost forceful, even disturbing, way!

For younger audiences, I think they will begin the movie with a preconceived Frank Capra-type expectation (which really seems old fashioned today), but slowly develop appreciation as these two worlds begin to collide. John Carpenter approached `Halloween' in much the same way: evil is a natural force in human nature that cannot be avoided or reasoned with no matter how hard one tries to act superior to it. Anyone who believes they can is merely deluding themselves. We often cannot control where or when it will enter and throw our lives asunder.

As for the players, they are entirely outstanding. Teresa Wright practically grows up before our eyes. Hume Cronyn provides intelligently fun comedic relief. Joseph Cotton is absolutely amazing as the heavy. His smirk reflects a cynicism and arrogance that attests to the hardships of the many dark corners of his world – the world Santa Rosa consciously shuts out. His negative energy would make him the perfect villain, but he's not an easy guy to hate. Just as his niece, Charlie, observes, we too find him dashing, charming, experienced, interesting and even friendly. By returning to Santa Rosa, we know that he's looking for something that has long been corrupted from his soul. We slowly realize that he can't ever truly return to his home, or what it represents for him, ever again. In that sense, Uncle Charlie is quite tragic. On the other hand, Hitch doesn't spare us of the evil lurking within, and Cotton's soliloquy at the dinner table is nothing short in awesome in giving us a peek inside the violent hatred fueling this serial killer.

Elvis Meets Nixon (1997 TV Movie)

That's right I'm crazy man....crazy like a fox!

[9 January 2003]

This movie kicks butt! Believe it or not, it may be the closest thing to portraying a `real' Elvis than has ever been made. And while Peters doesn't strike one as particularly Elvis-ish at first glance, he certainly nails the mannerisms cold and even DOES look creepily like the King in several shots (just check out the sly grin he flashes after handing out Christmas gifts to the Memphis Mob boys).

Let's face it. Elvis was one strange, eccentric dude.I guess that's what makes him so fascinating. To know that about him is to love him. And to be a fan means that you know how blown out of proportion his image has become. The closest representation we have of the actual man existing beneath the cape is the two painstakingly researched Gurlaick (yeah, I think I misspelled it) bios. But this movie, however, comes awfully close I think. And, as an added bonus, it's definitely light-hearted and fun, which was certainly a large part of Elvis' character.

The main drawback is certainly not the MINOR liberties taken with the facts per se (again - unbelievable - this story seems to be mostly true!), but the inclusion of the hippy run-ins on Sunset in LA. The flower kids in the record/head shop are sooooo stereotypical, and the one who has the sit-down with E in coffee shop has nothing but afterschool-special-you're-my-inpiration-type pap to lay on us. The only consolation is that Our Man doesn't fulfill his request to show up at his love-in protest or whatever (my boy, my boy!) These scenes I believe were well intended in their function to demonstrate how out of touch Elvis was with the real world, and could've been a great comedic culture clash but they, alas, are full of corn.

King Kong (1933)

Say, I guess I love you...

[19 December 2002]

I was fascinated by those who criticize `Kong' based on the exploitative, and inhumane, attitudes of its characters toward the island's native creatures and tribesmen. I don't think you can really judge the attitudes of the past based upon our own, current conceptions of what's right and wrong because really, in a nutshell, generations before just didn't know any better. For us to expect anyone to think beyond their own times is asking way too much. Visionaries of any generation are the exception, not the rule, and usually struggle to enlighten the rest of us. Who knows what future generations will think of us?

That said, in looking at `Kong' through modern eyes, the meaning of the story does indeed continue to expand well beyond the intentions of its creators. That's what makes this movie so great. It still hits a nerve somewhere. Most people, for instance, can easily come away with more sympathy for Kong (not to mention his island inhabitants) than his captors. What is the significance of that? Have we progressed beyond this type of insensitivity and what kind of irony can be read into the ending? There is some interesting symbolism represented in this film as well. From the ominous gates of Skull Island to the power of the Empire State Building, many parallels between these two cultures map out a questionable (or is it justifiable?) path toward `progress' in the modern age. Discuss amongst yourselves, class.

Well, anyway…for those of you who don't have the patience for analytical discussion and are mainly interested in the pure function of story and plot, `Kong' still packs a wallop. As a member of the `Star Wars' generation, I was amazed at how completely enthralling the action still is, even though the special effects and dialogue certainly seem `cheesy' by today's standards (it bears mention, however, that the effects, taken in the context of their times are amazing – and continue to be when one considers the intricate craftsmanship that went into not only creating them, but blending them in with the live action). The filmmakers here still manage to create a character out of Kong himself via their models, but also use the conventions of editing, music and sound throughout these sequences to present a timeless mixture of excitement, suspense and even, in the end, pathos. The violence is effectively used and appropriately brutal (I suspect that this was pre-Hays Code?). And notice the choice NOT to have score in certain moments. It makes the atmosphere downright awesome and spooky (much of the NYC stage show and Kong's defeat of the giant lizard come to mind).

Ah, and then there's the fair, the lovely, Fay Wray. Okay, her acting style seems very much rooted in the methods of silent star exposition – this was after all made on the heels of the talkie advent. But there are two things that still make her inseparable from the success of this film: 1) her scream is unsurpassed and undoubtedly set the template for future Janet Leighs and Judith O'Sheas (oh yes, there are different ways to scream my friends!); 2) her beauty, I think, still fits in with today's standards - and that's not always the case with actresses of the past. Fay Wray, as she was, is definitely very easy on the eyes and continues to be. Hail! All witness the power of the Golden Woman!

American Beauty (1999)

If it weren't for the performances...

[17 October 2002]

Is it just me or has anyone noticed how similar in tone & structure this film is to Ang Lee's "The Ice Storm" from the year before? (which, in my opinion, is a better film) I like "American Beauty." It is a quality piece of work, but I've always felt it was completely overrated. The subject matter concerning the alienated, troubled, even psychotic mentality lying beneath the surface, conformist veneer of American suburbia is certainly nothing new to film. "Ordinary People" was all about that. Hell, "Rebel Without a Cause" is largely about that! So we all now know good & well that everyone who lives in the suburbs are completely unhip to the city, living a life of denial and don't know how to communicate accept in a destructive, passive-aggressive manner that ends in tragedy. Right? Don't tell me "American Beauty" is anything new. Filmmakers have hated suburbanites since there were suburbs.

That said, the performances completely redeem my quibbles with the material (there are actually MANY more things I have problems with, but I've long since grown bored with the discussion, as well as these tired plotlines. Now comes the time on Sprockets when we dance!). Lester Burnham is perhaps one of THE great characters ever put on film, and that wouldn't have possible without Kevin Spacey. Thora Birch, apart from being a natural beauty, is mesmerizing in her vulnerable alienation (if you haven't seen her is "Ghost World," seek it out. Her performance was THE best I've seen from last year.). Annette Benning's bitchiness rivals that of Kathleen Turner's in "War of the Roses" yet she manages to maintain a certain level of sympathy about her character. Mena Suvari is engaging and likeable in the way she can always be counted on for, even in fairly bad films like "Loser." Without a doubt, all of these performances are completely deserving of major praise.

Sure, there are those of you who will say: just because the subject material is familiar, the entire movie shouldn't be held to fault. After all, wasn't "High Noon" or "The Searchers" just another western? Wasn't "Reservoir Dogs" just another heist flick or "Jaws" just another monster movie? In a certain sense, the answer to those questions is yes, but I would also add that each of these films brought something so new and profound to their genres that make you completely forget about the cliches the filmmakers were using. I don't see this with "American Beauty." As I watched, the expected happened, as well as the unnecessary. By the end, the audience is bludgeoned with a point already made abundantly and numbingly clear. This, I feel, betrays the brilliance of the performances. Did I mention that I still, nonetheless, like this movie?

7/10

Manhunter (1986)

What? No Tattoos?!

[8/10 · 14 October 2002]

I'm starting to think that I may be one of the only people who saw this film when it was originally theatrically released! Years after that, as a freshman in college, I was managing a video store when a woman came in looking for the recently released `Silence of the Lambs.' She said she knew William Petersen from childhood and told me that he was in THE first Hannibal the Cannibal movie. Having not read the novel or seen the movie for a while, I never related the two before that. But I specifically remembered `Manhunter' for its creepy killer, spectacular use of Iron Butterfly, and the strange & frightening notion (for then) of FBI profiling. These three details alone speak volumes for the film's acting, style and writing. The irony of forcing oneself to share the same maniacal thoughts as a killer in order to catch them is the stuff of nightmares. Since reconnecting with `Manhunter' back then, I've remained a constant fan of the film.

But the film suffers today in several ways. First off, any comparison to `Silence of the Lambs' is going to come up short. `Silence' is simply a better film – a classic of the highest caliber that will continue to sustain itself with the passage of time. Those already acquainted with Jonathan Demme's world will probably have a hard time accepting `Manhunter.' But audiences should judge the film on its own merits, and recognize that unlike `Red Dragon' it was not designed to resemble an established world of a classic movie – which is both a curse and an advantage for both films. I recently saw `Red Dragon,' by the way, and loved it. Walking out, I found myself asking whether I liked it better than `Manhunter.' These comparisons can get very silly because not only am I basing my impressions on a book, but also a previously filmed version and a closely related `sequel.' Best method: let each stand alone, THEN decide if either was successful. Both films succeed for similar and different reasons.

The approach of `Manhunter' is much more cold and observational than `Red Dragon.' This style (often concerned with widely symmetrical composition), like Kubrick's, can greatly benefit the story if used properly. I really liked it here. The neatness and sterility of the 80s décor also works perfectly in this format, providing a nice contrast to the horrors sometimes contained within its walls.

As for the music, it has not aged well. The synthesized stuff in the first hour is effective at times (especially when it's just a single, sustained note a la John Carpenter, or those bits that sound like `Blade Runner'), and the inclusion of In-a-Gadda-da-Vida is inspired, but the electronic balladry during Dolarhyde's romance is simply awful and detract from the scenes. Obviously, the danger of using such modern music is that it can become outdated and cheesy very quick. Is it just me, or does this especially seem true of 80s music? Given Michael Mann's career, he clearly wouldn't agree. I guess one never knows. The Tangerine Dream score for `Risky Business' or Phillip Glass' for `Thin Blue Line,' for example, still hold up remarkably well from this period.

The performances, however, are still wonderful. Petersen (whom I've heard didn't like the job he did) reaches just the right blend of seeming haunted, detached, morose, and as Dolarhyde describes him, purposeful. Dennis Farina, himself a former Chicago cop, exudes realistic authority as Jack Crawford. Tom Noonan obtains a disturbing childlike innocence and deliberation in his terror. And Brian Cox…poor guy, will always be compared to Anthony Hopkins. It's unfair because he gives us a Lecter that is different, to be sure, but intelligent in a way that, to me, is more realistic, intriguing and ultimately frightening. Hopkins' Hannibal is so supremely horrible that he's practically supernatural at this point, not unlike Dracula or the Wolfman. I enjoy all of that too, but just on a different level.

8/10

Corvette Summer (1978)

The Best Lookin' Street Machine on the West Coast!

[7 October 2002]

Yes, I grew up in the generation of original Star Wars fanatics. Yes, I only saw Corvette Summer because of Mark Hamill. Yes, it's a very cheesy & kitschy film. On a lark, I recently picked it up on video at a supermarket for about $5. Having not seen it for many years, I gotta say, however, that it's a total riot! Without a doubt, this film is probably going to hold greater interest to those who either have fond memories of the 70s, or, at least, a passing interest in the decade when tacky was king. Those who have no understanding of the era will likely come away totally bewildered. Reasons you want? Well, please allow me...

1. I love Stingrays. Besides, it's great to see Hamill become obsessed about cars in a way only teenagers can (once girls enter the picture - for real - this love affair changes forever, as it does in the film).

2. As much as I share the love for Stingrays, I equally love 70s ideas of hipness. Hamill is given total freedom to build his "dream car" and what does he do? He cranks out a custom discomobile - a glitter vette that would make any purist cringe. Insane! Oh, and let's not forget Potts' customized van (with waterbed, natch).

3. Favorite moments: a) Hamill briefly gets money & therefore a HUGE head to go with it; b) a guy who earlier attacks Hamill with a chain makes a hysterically insincere apology ("hey man, I'm real sorry about that thing, you know, with the chain thing...I'm sorry about that."); c) Hamill kicks Danny Bonaduce's butt (and Cokes go flyin'!); d) the leader to a convoy of Chicano low riders explains his notion of "class"; e) Bonaduce, again, goes for the 70s knockout punch with his limited, but memorable, dialogue ("I know...let's do a dune buggy!!" and, his personal best delivered over CB radio no less, "Breaker, breaker, Shop Class One! Honk if you love Corvettes! This is the Top Hat in the Dragon Wagon. Dig it boys & girls!")

4. The great b-movie actor Dick Miller pops up with a two dollar bill ("just call me Gladstone Duck!), as does a menacing Brion James. The film, therefore, can't be all THAT bad.

5. Cornball aside, Potts and Hamill are extremely likable, have great chemistry together and do a lot with their stock character roles. For example, here's a twist: although Potts plays a hooker with a heart of gold (Yawn...), she's actually only a "trainee" with a heart of gold (Redemption!!). So she's can be kooky without being morally corrupt, and plays it with just the right amount of edge that makes it okay to like, and not pity, her (not that I condone hookers-in-training mind you). As for Hamill, we never question his loyalty to his car. Check out the glint in his eye when he talks shop with- who else? - his shop teacher, "you're right. It IS perfect."

6. Even though there is plenty of unintended humor, which also adds to the fun, the movie IS actually pretty funny apart from that!

The Incident (1967)

You gonna give a speech mister? Speech! Speech!

[3 October 2002]

This film is a parable. I first saw a really lousy print 20 years ago in high school ethics class. I've since taped it off of cable and have shown it to several friends over the years and they are always knocked out by the portrayal of grittiness for the time period. Indeed, this film still feels contemporary.

Those who judge it on the basis of "what I would do in this situation is..." are really off base. First of all, one of the compelling aspects of The Incident is that it develops each character's weakness so that we not only relate to these very identifiable human frailties (which runs the gamut from racism, submissiveness, marital strife, homosexuality, et. al.), but we also understand their particular reasons for not standing up to the thugs. Of course, just because we identify does not excuse the passengers' behavior (or, should we say, failure to act), which is exactly the ethical dilemma presented by the film. Secondly, it is supposed to infuriate and anger us as viewers. As anyone who has worked in or around the law profession knows, the cowardice depicted here is nothing unusual, nor is it unique to NYC. People under stress behave in ways that often boggle the imagination. Remember the stories from the Titanic, for example, about how some passengers acted dutifully and bravely, while others did inexplicably selfish things? The passage of time has not changed human nature.

The ensemble cast is a fantastic whos-who of up & comers from the period. Even Ed McMahon puts in a fully capable performance! The real stand-outs here, however, are certainly Musante, Sheen & Bridges. I'm not familiar with Musante's work on the old TV show `Toma,' but I am disappointed his career never blossomed on the big screen because he's a revelation here. The nature of his character allows him to emote humor, phony compassion and violence, and he succeeds without becoming a maniacal cartoon. And even though we don't know his character's back story, his expressions exude a personal history of frustration that has given way to toughness, hatred and eventually an unstable and violent temper. This, of course, is his character's ultimate weakness. Who knows, maybe Tarantino will give Musante a ring one of these days.

Monterey Pop (1968)

Watch out for your ears!!

[1 October 2002]

I've heard it commented that Monterey Pop is less of a `movie' than Woodstock because it doesn't really get to know the Audience as a character (through interviews, pointed observation, thru-stories, etc.). This is nothing more than old-fashioned critic snobbery. The distance is precisely the mystique of the film. Do we need to talk to the audience or to Janis Joplin, for example, after her performance? As an impressed Cass Elliot looks on, we see Joplin playfully skitter off the stage like a schoolgirl to embrace a friend after her victorious `Ball & Chain,' and we totally feel her sense of accomplishment and state of exhaustion after delivering such a powerhouse. Sometimes a picture speaks a thousand words.

Monterey Pop, in comparison to Woodstock, does indeed have a distant feel and, overall, lacks that film's spit & polish. But this is like comparing two different directing styles – say Kubrick vs. Ford. Based on its own merits, this film is a fantastic, bare-bones look back at the state of (what was then!) underground music…before drugs & death took their massive toll, before it all became `classic rock' commercialism, and before everyone (including myself) had a chance to pontificate on its merits ad nauseum. The distance afforded their subjects by the filmmakers adds to this experimental `street' allure and is actually very appropriate. Have you ever felt cheated by a band simply because they went commercial? How it just doesn't feel the same because what once seemed like a hip secret kept by a choice few had now gained Mass Audience Appeal? The jig was up. Alas, for those old days… Monterey captures that spirit of an unbridled, non-compromised and spontaneous movement that has just the right touch of danger attached.

Even though Monterey Pop has a garage rock feel, it's not really about `garage rock' per se, which has its roots back to 50s. It's more about a time when rock really went through a kind of psychedelic overhaul that continues to influence today. Besides the psychedelia, however, rock went through a diverse artistic transition that begun to incorporate music from other countries, styles and mediums (You want diversity? Try Otis Redding and Ravi Shankar on the same bill!). Although the Beatles had already begun to incorporate this stuff, most had not by '67 and were just perfecting their own innovative sounds (Janis Joplin, for instance, did not bring in a full horn section until a couple of years later, and Big Brother remained very guitar-driven). The jazz of Hugh Mesekela, for instance, is a standout here. I don't see Woodstock as having such a wide scope.

On the other hand, comparisons made to Woodstock are valuable enhancements to this film's enjoyment, not necessarily the base of negative critique. One reviewer, for instance, pointed out the medium hairstyle length of most of the men here (most were so new to The Scene that they hadn't had enough time to grow it out yet. Crew cuts and horn-rimmed glasses also abound). Many of the bands also look surprisingly young & innocent when compared with their Woodstock performances only 2 years later (the results of hard living?). Hendrix at Woodstock, in particular, comes off as nearly sedate when compared to his historic appearance here. Such details are what make Monterey Pop a gorgeous document of this period.

Popeye (1980)

Could use a little more spinach.

[30 September 2002]

I recently watched this movie after reading producer Robert Evans' "The Kid Stays in the Picture," which briefly details the making of this flick. I haven't seen Popeye since it came out (I was only eight), but I surprisingly remembered almost all of it, including those dreadful songs.

I have to agree with those of you describing the strangeness of this film (I was especially amused by the reviewer simultaneously conflicted and, seemingly, terrified by the creepiness!). But for those of you who are fans of the old Popeye cartoons & comic strips from the 1930s, you have to admit,however, that this movie is pretty darn faithful. This may be why it's so bizarre: it's a living cartoon. Bringing a cartoon to actual life usually takes away from the original's vibe, and creates a completely new, almost surreal, one through the attempt. It almost can't be avoided. Popeye's huge forearms, for example, are one thing in the comic - an exaggeration of workingman strength. Seeing them in real life is quite unnerving. Does this faithfulness make it a good film though? Odd, to be certain (almost fascinatingly so), but good?

I was always a fan of those old black & white cartoons I grew up with,

so I was REALLY excited to see this back in 1980. As a child, I clearly remember being disappointed and bored, except for a few fighting scenes. I like it now more, but like our conflicted reviewer friend, I'm not completely sure why.

Robin Williams does a great job with Popeye's trademark always-mumbled-beneath-breath irreverent wisecracks (ad-libbed perhaps?). Shelly Duvall is downright perfection. Aloha Ray Walston! And then there are the songs....

The late Harry Nilsson wrote some great stuff in his time, and had an incredible range and odd sense of humor. His music still permeates the movie world on a regular basis ("Coconut" from Reservoir Dogs, "Jump Into the Fire" from Goodfellas, Midnight Cowboy, You've Got Mail and, who could forget, the memorably annoying theme song to The Courtship of Eddie's Father). He was also, along with best friend & drinking buddy/sometime-collaborator John Lennon, known as quite the Wild Man. What was he thinking here? These songs have such a carelessness to them that some of them don't even seem like songs at all - they just kind of breeze in and breeze out. Lyrics are incredibly simplistic and repetitive. And I'm still not sure if Pappy's rant toward the end of the pic was intended as a "number" or not.

But maybe this was what he was going for. Maybe Nilsson was experimenting with the musical format. Maybe he, like myself, had a hard time suspending disbelief when watching musicals, and finds it kind of weird and obtrusive when characters suddenly break into song and dance (you have to admit...the whole idea is pretty hard to swallow when you really think about it). Then again, maybe he was just losing it! This could've been the equivalent of a musical hangover. At the very least, as another reviewer mentioned, the songs DO ultimately have a catchiness that you can't quite escape. Who knows? Maybe this film will gain some cult appeal.

Even though it was based on existing material, Popeye is definitely different! For that alone, it has to be worth something. Right?

The Wicker Man (1973)

Blimey!I'm becoming a fan!

[27 September 2002]

I did like this film, but wasn't ga-ga over it. It's certainly growing on me, however. Once you see it, the images stay with you! Anyway, I don't think I can add anything critical that hasn't been said here already (pos or neg), so I won't bother.

But in reading the comments, I've noticed that there doesn't appear to be ANY negative reviews from our UK friends, which made me wonder why the Wicker Man has never been held in such high esteem or recognition in the US. I think the film represents a cultural stumbling block for much of the American audience. By & large, we're not likely to relate to the traditions of countryside pub life, English politeness or Celtic religion (even though elements of these customs have had their carryover here in different ways). Americans of Euro-decent who are interested in their lineage may find this fascinating. I would think the same could be said of those familiar with - perhaps through travel -and interested in the English culture. I wish I can say that the film would have a broader appeal based simply on its marvelous technique & style, but I'm afraid that the "local flavor" of Wicker Man is so thick that Americans would instantly see it as being too odd - or even "silly" as one person commented - to spend time on (to be sure, it does seem to have a small following here). We're not always the most open-minded bunch.

Am I on the mark? I'd be interested to hear what others may think - esp. from those in the UK - of my cultural-barrier-theory!

JFK (1991)

Irresponsible

[18 March 2002]

God, I remember how highly I thought of this film when it came out. Being 19 years old at the time, I suppose my interests toward "important" issues were evolving into a more relavant, adult and analytical perspective. I wanted information. I wanted to know who was pulling the strings behind the secure illusions of my youth (those comforting magical walls that all seem to crumble in the turbulence and onset of higher education and young adulthood). But of course, as a teenager, I was certainly more influenced and impressed than I am now with the flash and fervor of those who truly create a lot of attention through their work -- entertainers. As unfortunate as it may seem, we cannot easily dismiss the stranglehold that all forms of media and pop culture have on our thinking and opinions in this country. Indeed, when "JFK" was released in 1991, it was preceded and followed by an onslaught of assassination conspiracy coverage in which a massive amount of unchallenged accusations and other preposterous information was given an air of seriousness by the public, myself included. "JFK" also should be given credit for sparking interest in the house passing legislation that released an unprecedented amount of previously classified files regarding the assassination. I would applaud the film for at least opening this dialogue. But the predominant public opinion that there was a conspiracy still persists. Much of this speculation is rooted in the same low standard of proof that this film depicts. It should therefore share some of the responsibility for the continued popularity of these views.

In Roger Ebert's new book ("The Great Movies" I think), he still insists that the inaccuracy of this film (which is largely outdated and discredited at this point) doesn't matter. Film should not be held to the same standard of truth, as journalism is, but is instead about depicting feel and emotion, he claims. I agree with him in that the movie is a conglomeration of conspiracy theories and feel -- specifically the paranoia the country felt after the assassination, of which I shared at one time. We want to think that JFK died for something more important than a lone crackpot's disturbing and dillusional political fanaticism. We want to know that JFK died for a reason. The movie dramatizes this desperate mood surrounding the search quite well. I truly disagree with Ebert's assertion that films have absolutely no responsibility to get their facts straight. First of all, I think some events, such as this one, deserve a higher standard of accuracy in thier cinematic treatments. I would mind less, and I think most people would, if say a film like "Ed Wood" was further from the facts than "JFK." Secondly, Oliver Stone does not present this story as mere speculation, but as historic revision (regardless of what he may claim he intended, this is certainly how the film was presented and preceived. One merely has to review all of the college lectures Stone gave, and still gives, in an attempt to achieve credibility and excite outrage). From the opening documentary footage (which is sprinkled with recreation footage, by the way) and somber Martin Sheen voice over to the inclusion of mostly fact-based characters and the exhibition of the Zapruder film, Stone is certainly making a real accusation that falls short (wisely, in my opinion) of presenting us specific any conclusions. What should have Stone done then? I would never argue that this film shouldn't have been made, or worse yet, censored in some way. I just feel that this is a really lousy, innaccurate, and largely irresponsible jumble of fact and fiction that attempts to exonerate an assasin, exalt a dishonorable and harrassing politician (Garrison), further tarnish the reputation of an deceased innocent (Shaw) and avoid the logical and reasonable information that explains the Warren Commission inconsistencies and other seemingly "mysterious" evidence. Acting wise, Costner, Pesci and Bacon all give hammy, way over-the-top performances and the story-telling is simply confusing, vague and disjointed. I could go on and on (haven't I done that already?) about the specific evidence that completely refutes what Stone has depicts, but this isn't exactly the forum. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in keeping an open mind toward reason and facts surrounding these nagging issues and debates (the pristine bullet, altered body, Oswald FBI/CIA connection, et.al.) read "Case Closed" by Barry Posner. The information is exhaustively and professionally researched with an academic approach of the highest standard and integrity. This is a very special and important book that does not ignore Oswald or Ruby's stories, for they are integral in understanding how this tragedy came to be. Nor does Posner ignore the arugments, put forth by completely rational people, that lead one to mistakenly conclude the existence of a conspiracy.

Inside the Osmonds (2001 TV Movie)

I'm a little bit country...

[12 February 2001]

Ok, I agree that this script had a Leave It To Beaver complex when it came to working out character's problems in a timely, neat manner. But hey, for those who remember the 1970s with fondness (yes, there are a few of us!), this was a pretty fun look back. Sure, the Osmonds were a pretty saccharine bunch, but they did have a few decent, rocking tunes early on (who knew the boys really longed to be the next Led-Zeppelin?). The movie does a great job in recreating their stage act, and the outfits are a total gas (the wigs and sideburns fare poorly closeup, but are sufficient in long shots). Some aspects of this story, such as their religious convictions and sibling rivalry, only got surface deep, but this was not intended to be the next Citizen Kane. Lighten up! I can't imagine any fan of the Osmonds (and there were millions!) being disappointed in this movie. By the way, did anyone notice that the fellow playing the father is D-Day from Animal House?!

That's My Boy (1951)

its all for Junior!

[17 December 2000]

I think it's a real shame that this movie has never been made available on tape or disc - it's hysterical!! Sure, not all of the hysterics are intentional (e.g., Dean Martin, who was 34 when this was made, and looking every year of it, playing a high school senior. The only thing missing from his prom scene are the smokes & martinis...although they're certainly present in spirit. Classic). They even allow Deano a couple of songs: the funny "Ball & a Jack" sequence is intercut with Lewis ineptly trying to match Martin's suave moves from the sidelines, but a backseat seranade of "I'm in the Mood for Love" is so out of place and arbitrary that it's priceless! Nonetheless, the comedy that was intended comes off quite well, especially the great Eddie Mayhoff ("How to Murder Your Wife") as Lewis's hilariously overbearing & macho father (unintended comedic moment II: Mayhoff doing pushups at the beginning of the film, proclaiming to be the epitome of health. He looks, however, to be in awful shape!). This film is certainly dated, but it really adds to its charm. Imagine a time when butter, pancakes and syrup were considered good for you (as is sleeping with your window open)! People didn't question the "correctness" of hunting. Doctors smoked. Men shaved with straight razors. College students didn't wear baseball caps and baggy pants. Dean Martin attends your high school!! It's all here! I must have gone through about 10 different copies of this over the years (it showed up quite often on the old "late, late movie" shows that used to be on network television. I always screwed up the commercial edits). AMC shows this sometimes, so check it out!

Viva Knievel! (1977)

The Greatest and Bravest Showman in the World!

[24 November 2000]

I LOVE this movie!! Ok, it is a terrible, terrible film, but that's what makes it so great! Back in high school, I can't begin to tell you how many beers my buddies & I downed whilst laughing our tails off at this movie. We would rewind scenes so many times that even years later, when we reunite, we can still recite some of these scenes verbatim. It's a classic. First of all, just consider this plot: a mob boss, played straight by Leslie Nielson of all people, wants to assassinate good ol' Evel in Mexico so he can use his stunt trucks to smuggle drugs back to the U.S., because no one is going to stop a "funeral procession for a hero." Try to follow THAT logic!! Another priceless moment comes when Evel delivers an anti-drug speech warning kids that if they use dope - just like race car drivers who use nitro in their cars - they too, will "blow all to hell!" (well, at least after "5 or 10 years" by his estimation anyway). I've never seen Gene Kelly looking so disgruntled and tired, and what would be complete without a way-over-the-top Red Buttons (classic line delivered to a groggy Evel: "What is this, Judgement Day!?). Where's Charro when you need her? And let's not forget that kid at the orphanage who literally throws his crutches to the floor and says, I kid you not, "you're the reason Evel! You're the reason I'm walkin'!" Evel Knievel: miracle man...ordained healer. And then of course there's that catchy theme song. I can't figure out why it was never a hit.