cjwynes Reviews

The Golden Spiders: A Nero Wolfe Mystery (2000 TV Movie)

A good, classic mystery novel brought to your TV screen

[25 July 2003]

For you Rex Stout readers, I needn't tell you that many fans consider The Golden Spiders to be a classic in the Nero Wolfe canon. I consider this, and the series that spun from it, to be solid adaptations of the novels.

As for the user comment prominently featured on the main page:

I see you've never read any of the Nero Wolfe mysteries. As a diehard fan of Rex Stout's portly detective, I can fill you in a little.

Archie Goodwin is indeed the protagonist of all the mysteries, he's the central character, the mysteries are told from his viewpoint. That they are called "Nero Wolfe Mysteries" is not a true incongruency that ought to offend a reader, or a viewer of this film or the subsequent series.

It's my opinion that both this movie, and the series that spun off from it, do Stout's novels justice as well as any video adaptation might. Archie gives the city of New York some flavor and style, and perfectly captures the essence of the 40's and 50's in that city, while somehow simultaneously making the portrayal timeless (the Wolfe novels began in '34 and were written well into the 60's.)

Wolfe is not meant to be *anything* like Sherlock Holmes. Wolfe is irrascible, eccentric, has a very short temper and little tolerance for stupidity, and his relationship with Archie is completely different from that of Holmes to Watson. That Wolfe is in his plant rooms with the orchids from 9-11 and 2-4 without fail (excepting Sundays), never leaves his beloved brownstone residence on West 35th street, and continually bickers with his chef Fritz about every recipe brought into the house, well that's the sort of thing that builds interesting characters. For my taste, Holmes is a dry and uninteresting character, for what it's worth. Wolfe has his flaws, and his share of little perculiar mannerisms, enough to make him interesting.

As for the obligatory scene, where the detective assembles everyone concerned into his office and solves the mystery, well....sure it's not realistic, but it's FUN. At least, for mystery readers it is. Since Wolfe (almost) never leaves his house, and it tickles his enormous vanity to set up such a scene, and Inspector Cramer knows Wolfe can deliver the goods in such a situation, they arrange for one.

I leave this comment so that future mystery novel enthusiasts, and fans of Rex Stout, will know that this film, the subsequent full-length feature (The Doorbell Rang), and the series is indeed quality material worth checking out.

Tommy (1975)

Don't believe the nay-sayers, it's good

[1 March 2002]

Producer Robert Stigwood, although not outshining his fantastic "Jesus Christ Superstar", brings an excellent film adaptation of another rock opera. I love the original Who album "Tommy", but there are performances in this film that trump the album. Eric Clapton as the Preacher performs a vastly more energetic version of "Eyesight to the Blind" than appears on the original album. "Amazing Journey", which was my least favorite piece on the album, is redone with a synthesizer feel in the film that is a definite improvement.

The additional pieces added by Townsend at Stigwood's request (to ensure that the story could be followed without the necessity of spoken word parts) are solid. An early piece when Reed and Ann Margaret meet is excellent. Margaret's later solo piece is memorable, to say to least.

Yes, Oliver Reed can't sing, but the conversational lyric is the trademark of rock opera. It isn't necessary to be the greatest vocalist to adequately portray that role. I personally think that Reed makes the part of the Stepfather MORE sympathetic, in contrast to other users' reviews. Like JCS's Judas, he can be no more than he is and isn't faulted for that. The looks between him and Ann Margaret fill the narrative gap that an opera might often lack. Jack Nicholson isn't much of a vocalist, and his part is the only song that suffers from that lack. Otherwise I have no complaints about the vocals.

As for the imagery, I mostly enjoy it. The transition from Tommy tossing the ceramic Virgin Mary to Clapton's musical sermon about "Mary" Monroe was highly amusing. The filmmaker takes out his ire upon a society that idolizes figures who are no more than sex icons. It's amazing that Elton John would participate in a piece that so mocks Monroe, about whom he wrote a sappy and ridiculous tribute song that is almost universally despised ("Candle in the Wind").

Unlike other users, I much enjoy the ending. The overcommercialization of Tommy's place as an idol is more explicit here than on the album. The attitude of man towards a messiah figure and religion in general is exposed in the final few songs with great clarity. Man is more than willing to follow a leader when it means he doesn't have to expend any effort. Yet when salvation involves sacrifice, we rebel.

If you enjoyed the album, I think you will enjoy the film if you let yourself. Too many people fall in love with the first version of an opera or musical that they hear and won't tolerate any alternate version. The comparison between this film and music video isn't apt anymore, as music video has become no more than a chance to showcase the good looks of the performer. The film "Tommy" is a chance to SEE what you loved to hear in the Who's classic rock album, and I am grateful for the opportunity a fan like myself has been provided.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

A very good movie, to heck with the nitpickers!

[10/10 · 5 January 2002]

Literary Spoiler (not for this film, but for part 3, Return of the King)

One thing out of the way first, I'll leave it to others to nitpick about

the few times that this film deviates from the novel. All things

considered, the movie adhered almost religiously to the novel, so I

don't think anyone should be complaining. To those complaints

that the film doesn't capture the "epic" nature of Tolkien's novels, I

think they should look at their use of the word epic. Robert

Jordan's Wheel of Time is an epic of the size that could never be

captured on film. Lord of the Rings is a little 3 book series that

doesn't even equal a single volume of Wheel of Time in length. I

think the duration of the film was perfect considering the content of

the novel.

The images in LotR are simply the best scenery shots ever seen

on the big screen. Fellowship of the Ring makes Phantom

Menace look like Carnosaur. Lucas should spend less time

creating stupid looking creatures and aliens and more time on the

big background shots (which did look good in Episode 1, the

Theed Palace and podrace arena especially.) Fellowship is

clearly trying to "wow" the audience with the effects shots, which it

certainly does! The collapsing bridge in Moria, the forge at

Isengard, and the library visited early in the film by Gandalf are

among the great shots this movie has to offer. My only complaint,

to echo another reviewer's remark, is that the fight scenes are

edited in the new style. One can hardly tell what's going on in the

overall scene because of too many closeups.

If you don't like the story, there's nothing to be done about that. The

reviewers who criticized the movie for dragging along can go back

to watching the usual Hollywood junk from people like Bruckheimer and get their quota of exploding cars and buildings.

The only warning I would issue to people who haven't read the

books is that the ending really leaves alot of unresolved questions,

and alot of viewers in the theatre were disappointed on both

occasions that I saw the film. Actually, some of what happens at

the end of this film is actually the *beginning* of the second novel.

Part 3 spoiler below:

I can only wonder how strictly they will hold to the shape of the

novels in part three, Return of the King, since the conclusion of the

main plot occurs in the middle of the book leaving 100+ pages

wrapping up loose ends. Personally, I think those last pages are

important to give the theme of diminishing beauty in the world

despite the victory (a sign of Tolkiens World War 1 experience.)

But that'll be seen in two years I suppose.

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

Still startling, one of Kubrick's best

[9/10 · 5 January 2002]

Minor spoilers

The plot of this film involves a group of street thugs having a bit of

fun at the expense of everyone they meet. The groups young

leader, Alex, finally runs afoul of the law and decides to enter a

new re-education program to "cure" himself of violent behaviour.

There are better plot synopses out there, I leave the rest to them,

and turn to reviewing the content.

Another reviewer remarked that the violence, considered

outrageous at the time this film was released, no longer seemed

shocking on screen. Despite the recent explosion in violent

imagery on film, Clockwork Orange does not seem dated at all.

Modern violence scenes, even those in which the characters

express as little remorse as Alex and his pals do in this film, seem

to be more emotional. The use of classical music in the

background of violent imagery, or Alex's rendition of Singing in the

Rain as he beats the liberal author and rapes his wife, somehow

separate the action on screen from the normal emotions a viewer

would feel upon seeing such things. Because of that, this film

struck me as far more violent than any of the Tarantino-style flicks

released these days.

The moral issues discussed in Clockwork Orange are even more

fascinating than the wonderful portrayals of detached violence. As

a civil libertarian, people sometimes face me with the question of

whether I could hold onto those ideals if it were *my* loved ones

whose security were threatened. I enjoyed seeing the liberal

author face this dilemma when Alex suddenly reappears in his life.

This is probably the 3rd Kubrick film to watch, behind Strangelove

and Full Metal Jacket, and before Shining. If you need a fifth

Kubrick film to watch, just watch Strangelove again. The

similiarities between Orange and 2001 begin and end with the

score, despite 2001's "cameo" appearance during Alex's trip to the

record store. I never miss a chance to warn Kubrick fans to stay

away from the horrible 2001, but Clockwork Orange I highly

recommend to any fan of other Kubrick films.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Feeding the arrogance of the baby-boomer generation

[4/10 · 17 September 2001]

As a younger man (22) I've grown up in a society was molded to fit baby-boomer self-centeredness. So perhaps I shouldn't find this film surprising. But I can't stomach the idea of another generation of people following their twisted view, so here goes...

No matter how much you want to stoke your own ego, there is no way that you can realistically equate the men who fought and died in WW2 to yourselves. Give up. This film is a terrible blow to our veterans.

Spielberg tries to make the soldiers seem like they're the same as you and me, but they weren't. All of the introspective musings in this film would make you think that these guys returned home after the war and started discussing Sartres in their local coffeehouse. These are 40's people who are portrayed thinking like 90's people. At least in "Thin Red Line", the film made no effort to portray itself as a true-to-life salute to those soldiers. "Thin Red Line" was a juxtaposition of a WW2 backdrop with Vietnam-era sentiments, and it made to portent of being anything else.

The WW2 generation didn't feel this ridiculous desire to explore their feelings and share them to the point of fault. They didn't have to connect to their fellows on some mystical, spiritual level. The entire war did not revolve around them as individuals, nor did they feel the need to ponder some existential connection to the war around them.

This film is simply another attempt by the baby-boomer generation to "prove" that they are as good as any other generation before them. This is their self-centered mythos. If a film actually showed the superior qualities of these American soldiers, it would destroy that myth. In truth, the American people felt a duty to their country back then. And they did not feel the need to wax philosophic at every turn in some attempt to justify the world's existence in the face of how "inconvenient" it may have been to their own selves. This contemporary psycho-babble had no place in their lives, and Spielberg had no right to put it there.

As for the characters who don't partake of this attitude, they are so paper thin that they add nothing to the film except to exacerbate the problem by making the mystics and coffeehouse types seem the more realistic.

If you have any respect for America, pass this film by.

Cabin Boy (1994)

This generation's cult classic....well, almost

[6/10 · 17 September 2001]

A reviewer below compared Chris Elliot to Andy Kaufman, and I don't think he knew how close that analogy really fits. Elliot is like Kaufman in alot of ways. Some people never really understood Kaufman's peculiar brand of performance, and from the looks of the reviews below, there are plenty of people who don't get Elliot. It was not always the *content* of Kaufman's performance that made you laugh, it was the fact that he was doing it in the first place. For those that saw "Man on the Moon", think about the Gatsby reading. It wasn't funny for an audience member at that Kaufman appearance to hear all of Gatsby being read, even LONG after the joke of doing it wore out. But paradoxically, if he hadn't done so it wouldn't have been as funny. What's funny is that he had the gumption to go ahead and finish the entire work, regardless of what the effect on his audience was.

Likewise, not everything that Elliot does is gut-busting hilarious. For those of us who like his work, it's the absurdity of what he did that counts. If you've seen Elliots short-lived TV series "Get a Life", than the perversely surrealistic scenery of "Cabin Boy" makes more sense. It's supposed to make the viewer feel like there is no normalcy to be found. I'm not claiming this was some great artistic acheivement, it's simply a good way to facilitate Elliot's brand of comedy. There was no comfortable, sane baseline in "Get a Life" to which characters could return, not even a basic continuity of plot between episodes (such as what characters are still alive.) Likewise, "Cabin Boy" is simply a string of absurd situations that when taken separately are not really "hilarious" in that sense. But taken as a totality, a fan of Elliot's humor appreciates the quirky nature of the film as a whole.

I say this not to convince those who don't like Elliot, only to justify the opinions of those of us who do in the face of people who simply write this film off as "horrible." In terms of quality, the TV series was Elliot's best work, but this film definitely has some appeal to some people. There really is a "cult" sort of following for this film, becuase some of us are sick of the cookie-cutter comedies that get churned out these days.

History of the World: Part I (1981)

Genuine laughs throughout...

[7/10 · 16 September 2001]

The reason I'll always enjoy watching this film, and had to go buy the DVD as soon as I got a player, is that the great laughs in this film never really wear out. Though the movie is made as a series of 5 or 6 shorts, ranging from a few minutes to a half hour, the laughs are spread out over the entire film. Every sequence has plenty of great bits, and you could watch it all the way through or just pop in the disc to see your favorite part.

The Inquisition musical sequence is one of my favorites, and will be a favorite of anyone who likes Brooks' other musical numbers (especially now, with the "Producers" a broadway smash.) Unlike another reviewer, I *never* get tired of the skeet-shooting with peasants scene. Madame DeFarge running out of wool should give a good chuckle to anyone who's read "Tale of Two Cities," as will the old man with his birds in the Bastille.

Some of the jokes flop, but the ones that don't more than make up for it. Not as good as Blazing Saddles, but probably Brooks' 2nd best film, and that's saying a lot.

The In-Laws (1979)

Very clever, one of the greatest comedies of its era...

[16 September 2001]

This is one of those lesser known comedy classics that I never would have seen if it hadn't been for my parents dragging it out of their old HBO-taped video library. It's become sort of a cult classic in my family. Every so often, we'll be walking out of our car and someone will shout "Serpentine, serpentine!" Just one of the classic moments in this film that you'll chuckle about every time you look back on this film.

The plot has great turns, which is something most recent comedies seem to neglect. Only "Something About Mary" has accomplished the mingling of plot twists with great comedic bits that was standard in a good 70's comedy. And this is one of the best.

If you enjoy this one, you should also look for "Hopscotch" with Walter Mathau.

Being There (1979)

Essentially a light comedy in parts, but...

[9/10 · 16 September 2001]

...the more serious themes explored in this film are what last in your mind after watching. First of all, to that guy from Jersey who reviewed below calling it "artsie-fartsie" and "boring", I will direct him to the Jerry Bruckheimer section, so he can receive the mindless shallow entertainment he's looking for. If your favorite movie is "The Rock", then by all means pass this one by.

The early scenes are really the best comedy in the film. Sellers on the streets of DC, the elevator jokes, and of course "Would you like a car, sir?"

Many other reviewers have remarked on the themes of this film, the commentary on media and politics. To my mind, it all comes down to the same point: the unnecessary complexity of people's relationships with each other and with society as a whole, especially their disingenuous nature. The viewer is made to feel a little like Holden from Catcher in the Rye, having the phoniness of the world paraded in front of us by the contrast between the simple gardener and the pretentious characters around him. Of course, as all the different people around Chance interpret his words to suit their own ideas and expectations, anyone thinking about this film could take something different from it. That may be an irony that this film's makers would enjoy.

As an aside, I enjoyed some of the symbolism in this film in light of having taken a class on the history of conspiracy theories. Watch for the Illuminati symbolism as a small group of men decide the future of America.

Overall, an excellent picture, though unable to maintain the comedic elements to the end.

Future War (1997 Video)

Only "Night of 1000 Cats" compares...worst film of 90's...

[1/10 · 14 September 2001]

Apparently, the MST3K tagline on this is that it neither takes place in the future, nor is it a war. That pretty much sums things up. That this film could be written, and a producer decided to actually film it, is a modern marvel. Really, the only worse 90's plot idea was Micheal Keaton coming back to life as a snowman. You have to wonder how mature adult executives managed to come to a decision for actually putting this film into production, let alone releasing it. Alot of movies are bad, this one bears the distinction of being the worst film of the 90's by far. That includes Patch Adams, the film I rank #2 in crumminess for that decade. This makes Peter Jackson ("Meet the Feebles") look like Francis Ford Coppola. The English language lacks the vocablulary to describe how abyssmally awful this "film" is.

My Neighbor Totoro (1988)

Saw this is high school Japanese class in '95

[13 September 2001]

I saw this as I was just getting into anime, so I must say that I was disappointed. Yeah, I know it's kiddie fare for the most part, that doesn't let it off the hook. When I filtered the top 250 into animations and saw that "My Neighbor Totoro" was #2, I was shocked and appalled. This is fine as a kiddie flick, but has really NO value outside of that boundary. Another reviewer has called it "imaginative", and perhaps it is that. But that's hardly enough to warrant watching this film unless you're 4 years old. We watched it in class because at the time we didn't even know any Japanese words other than "shinkansen". The members of my class immediately skipped ahead in our writing texts to learn how to write "Totoro" in hiragana script and made a joke out of it for 3 months, writing it on the boards. I think "Totoro wa, nan des ka" was our classes anthem. Please don't watch this film. Kiddie flicks have no business being rated so highly on this site,

American Pop (1981)

Greatest animation ever from the greatest animator...

[9/10 · 13 September 2001]

Modern animated features pale in comparison. All we get today is the crum they produce over at Disney (excepting the few very cinematic scenes we get in Dinosaur) and a few decent Dreamworks films that hardly qualify as animation anymore.

This film takes the animation format and explores what it can really do with character and theme. It takes American history and turns it into a chronicle of musical development that satisfies the music-lover as no other film does.

Don't judge Bakshi by LOTR, see this one and Wizards and you'll have a new respect for animation. The only animated film even approaching this one since it was made is the Rats of Nihm, and it's a distant second. Even Nihm seems like Casablanca compared with modern crud like The Emporer's New Groove, or whatever hollow junk Disney is releasing next summer. See this film and remember (or learn for the first time) what truly good animation can be!

Wizards (1977)

If you liked Heavy Metal, this is better!

[8/10 · 13 September 2001]

I first saw this film as recommended by my father and my friends. I had seen Heavy Metal unedited for the first time (this is in the days when you had to go to a sci-fi con and buy a bootleg copy if you wanted to see anything more than the edited TBS version.) This film was recommended to me along with Fritz the Cat (this is far superior, I may add.) I quickly became a fan of all Bakshi animation. In fact, in the annals of animation, this film is exceeded only by American Pop. It's that good!

The Hitler imagery struck me as out of place, or perhaps a little too much. Other than that, this is a classic animation. Well drawn, good story, adds up to a great film. If you're a fan of the 70's or 80's style animation (or even if you just saw Cool World once) this film will be a must watch.

Funny Farm (1988)

Better than people give it credit for....

[7/10 · 8 September 2001]

This film has some pretty negative and ho-hum comments. I won't say it's his best, but this is still a great film for fans of Chevy Chase. There are a number of good laughs, even if the comedy isn't nonstop like today's ADHD movie-goers demand. Every so often, someone in my family will say "Cue the deer," and we still have a good chuckle every time. Just one of the all-time classic lines in a classic comedy sequence that is really the lasting mark of this film. The telephone operator scene, and all the dog scenes are just great for laughs, too. Really, this film falls into that "Saturday afternoon on USA" sort of category, like PCU and Used Cars. You wouldn't go rent it perhaps, but if it came on TV some afternoon, it's always worth a watch.

Schindler's List (1993)

Pretentious Oscar-pandering is Spielberg's WORST

[2/10 · 6 September 2001]

OK, I really don't like this film. So I'll start with the positives. That would be Ben Kingsley....ok, I guess that's it.

First of all, there's the obvious fact that Spielberg was gunning for the Oscar on this one. He picked an issue that was popular in the politically correct world of Oscar voters, one that nobody can remedy or do anything about but they all like to discuss to show how much they care, and ran with it. The full weight of the concentration camp massacres can only really be seen in that French documentary (the name eludes me.) And if you want to get a feel for life in Nazi Germany, you might as well watch the propaganda film "Triumph of the Will," giving the viewer a chilling glimpse at the culture of national socialism.

Spielberg's attempts to be "artsie" are incredibly phony, particularly the "red dress girl"'s presence in a B&W film. An Liam Neeson simply does not pull off his part. At the film's end, you REALLY want to sympathize with Schindler when he laments that he could have saved "one more," but Neeson's performance in that critical scene is unconvincing. He plays the cold and reserved parts of Schindler's character so strongly that the character development leading to that emotional climax is lost.

People rate this film highly because they feel that they're supposed to. Don't take their word. The film (with Kingsley as the exception) is poorly acted, drawn out, and pretentious. If you've been fortunate enough to miss this film so far, keep up the good work.

Patch Adams (1998)

Overly-simplistic activism + tired old material = BAD FILM

[1/10 · 2 August 2001]

Easily the worst film Robin Williams ever did. This "film" is really one long propaganda picture for the extreme left to champion health-care reform. I don't oppose making political points in pictures, but the film simply doesn't have the depth to support the point it tries to make. Such statements as the diner employee's lamentation "I think the government should pay for my health care," are not only baldly political and highly oversimplistic, but are not examined with the thoroughness or balance that such a topical issue demands.

So, taking the failure to address the political issues intelligently into account, all this film leaves you with is a severe boredom. If you've seen ANY Williams film before, or watched even ONE episode of Mork and Mindy, you'll have deja vu. This is the same tired, old junk that Robin Williams has been doing for years. And if you like the freewheeling comedy he's typical for, go rent Aladdin, because this film doesn't bring anything new to the table.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

A Complete Waste of Time

[3/10 · 2 August 2001]

This is one of those films that a lot of people claim to like. So I was incredibly surprised how terrible it was, especially since I usually enjoy Kubrick films.

The film begins with a 15 minute intro sequence picturing apes at the "dawn of man." It lasts only 15 minutes, but feels like an hour. For plot, the apes are visited by a large black monolith which appears one morning amidst their tribe and somehow sparks evolutionary developments in the monkeys. This is followed and preceded by meaningless time-killing ape scenes.

Skip ahead to the year 2001, where another large black monolith has appeared on the moon. (IIRC, this film was originally a short story entitled "The Sentinel", so I suppose the monolith was meant to mark humankind's progress.) The black stone sends a signal out into space, so a mission to investigate Jupiter (presumably the destination of the signal) is launched.

The third part of the film then begins, as the astronauts depart for Jupiter. This is the part of the film familiar to those of us who hadn't seen it, featuring the supercomputer HAL and his descent into evil. This is really the only redeeming part of the film, it's too bad the rest of the film wasn't like this. The scene where the astronauts are discussing the disassembly of HAL in supposed privacy, and we then see HAL reading their lips, is very eerie and quite chilling.

Unfortunately, the film goes totally off the wall when the mission arrives at its target. A strange and seemingly pointless barrage of flashing streams of color start flying across the screen, broken only occasionally by the remaining astronaut's frightened face. After about 10 minutes (I'm not kidding, it's that long) we see the astronaut in some strange place, which the film implies is somehow outside of time, where he ages and dies over a few minutes. Then, cue the space baby...roll credits.

Considering that a lot of people on this site can't even understand the very simple ending of the new Planet of the Apes movie, I can't understand why this film managed to get such good marks. Even the people I know who claim to like this film always seem to dodge the question when I ask them to explain this movie. The few good points are: the apes' first post-monolith change is discovering the use of weapons (a relevant commentary on humanity), and the soundless nature of space (nothing bothers me more than hearing explosions in the vacuum of space.) Other than a few good moments, this film is entirely rubbish. Please DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM, YOU WILL REGRET IT!