bighebeal Reviews

Wet Paint (1926)

Why is there still a review on this site for this movie?

[25 January 2023]

This is a lost film, and would not have been seen anywhere on this planet since 1930 or so at the latest. It is completely impossible that the reviewer saw it, so why is it still here?

It would be nice if the film did exist, but like most of Griffith's work, that's not the case. If one wanted one could see, for example, HANDS UP or PATHS TO PARADISE or TRENT'S LAST CASE and write reviews for those. What would possibly motivate someone to write a review of a movie they never saw? What is the satisfaction in that?

I believe that many of these reviews, all coming from the same (notorious) source, have since been taken down. Why is this still here?

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Guardians and Gladiators (2020) Season 22, Episode 1

Awful.

[1/10 · 16 October 2022]

Phony and bigoted. Offensive. Heavy-handed does not begin to describe it. "Virtue-signaling" -- except that it does not signal virtue, it signals social irresponsibility and a desire to increase racial tension. It's one thing for TV writers to allow their political prejudices to influence their work, and that has happened on this series many, many times, but this was way over the line. Suggesting that someone who is resisting arrest and has multiple warrants out for him should not be arrested specifically because of his complexion is preposterous. This show was hate speech. Period.

"LAW & ORDER: SVU" has jumped the shark.

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Remember Me (2018) Season 19, Episode 23

Glad I'm not the only one.

[1/10 · 30 January 2022]

I see this got almost uniformly abysmal reviews here. The show's politics, always heavy-handed, are really, really beyond the pale this episode. The woman, beyond all her other psychotic, appalling behavior, SMASHES A STRANGER'S SKULL IN WITH A HUGE TROPHY, MURDERING HIM, and Benson wants her to be let off for it because she's a 'victim'. Despite not having a particle of evidence, Benson is willing to believe every single accusation made by a screaming and deranged woman who is in the middle of committing multiple felonies because she is a 'victim'.

Well, I'm sorry. I believed her accusations, but her actions made her just plain despicable.

That's it, I'm done. I watch the ION-TV marathons of these on Saturdays, and I've just bailed on the follow-up episode to this.

Abbott and Costello Meet the Keystone Kops (1955)

Terrible, really, yet hard to dislike.

[3/10 · 30 August 2021]

This is, like all of their '50's films except ...MEET THE MUMMY, really bottom-drawer A&C. There are very few laughs, and the few there are go to people other than Bud and Lou -- the stuntmen in the climax, Fred Clark (who gets the biggest laughs in the movie with his reactions during a mistaken-identity-exiting-and-entering scene), etc.

But the basic concept, of setting a Bud & Lou vehicle in the early days of movies, is a charming idea, and the period props, costumes, etc., are very cute. And the main musical theme, which is repeated in various forms and used under the climax, is terrific. Plus the cast has a lot of nice cameos, both from old A&C hands and silent comedy veterans. And the 'meta' references -- having Costello become a stuntman, which he really had been, then having the two of them set up as a comedy team -- are also appealing.

The weaknesses stem from several sources. First, there's the overall story arc, which, in its cheap and illogical turns, really feels like a kids' movie -- grownups just wouldn't buy it, even in this context. Add to that the musical score, which outside the main theme is pretty terrible, and is constantly telling us how funny everything is (especially when it isn't). Then there's the fact that Abbott keeps getting beat up -- did the writers forget the team's whole dynamic? (Though one early scene where that happens is one of the few good things in the movie, and feels like an old burlesque bit, which used to be their stock-in-trade.) Plus there's the uninspired direction by Charles Lamont, who helmed most of their worst movies, and was never any good with pace. (Same goes for the editing, which kills some laughs by not being tight enough.)

But the biggest share of the blame goes to the boys themselves, Lou particularly. At some point around 1950 or so he seems to have decided their main audience was children, and he started playing to them exclusively. The opening scene, with Lou crying at a silent melodrama, is just embarrassing, and so is a lot of the rest of his work here. Where is the genius comic of the war years, so admired by, among others, his hero Charlie Chaplin? He's not in this movie at all, nor in most of their others from that era.

Still, the climax is fun, as are some other moment here and there. Not many, but there are a few. As I said, it really is a lousy movie, but it's a hard one to hate.

Law and Disorder (1974)

Fascinating time capsule

[8/10 · 19 March 2020]

This movie is basically a slice-of-life drama about working class people trying to maintain some order when, as Hamlet said, "the time is out of joint". It's plotless and episodic, and the tone changes from broadly comic early on to utterly nightmarish by the end. It has tons of authentic New-York-in-the-'70's atmosphere (it would play well on a bill with TAKING OF PELHAM 123 or SERPICO), and was, of course, actually shot there. The racial tensions, the collapse of the system, the oddballs, the hopelessness -- they're all there. And the performances are quite good -- neither O'Connor nor Borgnine has ever been better.

If you know what to expect, you will probably enjoy it very much. There are a few negative reviews from people who were obviously expecting a straight comedy... that's not what this movie is.

Once Bitten (1985)

Abysmal

[2/10 · 15 April 2018]

Unbelievable. Witless, coarse, crude, offensive, horrendously directed... This was produced by Samuel Goldwyn Jr. His father had been one of the two 'classiest' producers in old Hollywood; he not only made many superb dramas -- "prestige pictures", they used to call the type of dramas he'd make -- he also made excellent comedies, and he'd hired the very best writers and directors (Billy Wilder, George S. Kaufman, Howard Hawks. etc.) to make them. He must have turned over in his grave to see his name connected with this garbage.

The director has zero idea of how to make a scene 'cook', to develop chemistry between his actors, to bring out whatever humor there might be in a situation... nothing. He seems to have spent most of his career grinding out sitcom episodes -- second-rate ones, at that -- which is a very different thing than doing what Hawks or Wilder or McCarey did. The climactic chase is embarrassing even by boneheaded-'80's-comedy standards. This seems to be his only feature-directing credit, and you can see why.

Re the cast, Jim Carrey does the best he can, but he is obviously hamstrung by a director who told him to just do the script as written, like television -- and the script as written was just awful. Cleavon Little is wasted. The only saving grace is Lauren Hutton, who is sexy as hell and seems to be having a good time despite everything.

It's also fun as a time capsule of its era -- the clothes, the music, etc. But outside of that and Lauren Hutton, it's an utter stinkeroo.

Maybe Sunshine (2015– )

Funny and smart

[8/10 · 21 September 2016]

It's an appealing idea, especially now, when the entire planet seems to be run by 22-year-olds: if you're a bit older -- say, 40-something -- do you still have a place in rock 'n' roll, which is, after all, music by and for young people? Is it even possible? Even for a former 'contender'?

The show is about a bottom-level outer boroughs band, made up of oddballs and losers, that seems to be the only thing ex-rock star Hammer has going for her career-wise, and she struggles to hold the band, and herself, together... even though there is absolutely nothing to suggest they are going anywhere.

This is a very well-written show, well-directed, and very well acted by the entire cast, top to bottom. Hammer is particularly strong in the lead, as the middle-aged "everywoman" trying to reclaim her place in the business. She's got a dry, understated quality, and knows how to use stillness for comic effect. She's the center of the hurricane, our identification point, who deals with the clueless young screwballs by just stopping and staring... Funny stuff.

And the show is just bursting with comic ideas, many of them kind of nasty, which makes them even funnier.

To quote something you middle-aged folks will remember: "Try it, you'll like it."

Men Go to Battle (2015)

Superb!!!

[10/10 · 14 July 2016]

Not only the best 'indie' I've ever seen -- by FAR -- but one of the best historical movies I've ever seen. For an hour and a half I really felt like I'd wandered around rural America during the Civil War.

As the previous reviewer commented, this is a movie about textures, not plot. The dialogue is spare, very spare; the accents feel authentic, so much so that there are moments when it's hard to make out what they're saying -- but it doesn't matter. Plot points, such as they are, don't come out in dialogue as much as through the flow of images. Nobody talks about relationships -- they don't talk much at all, which feels 'right' for the place and time -- rather, we sense the relationships through how people look at each other, how they react, wordlessly, to each other's behavior.

The casting is excellent, too. With one minor exception, all the people in the film feel like figures from that era. This is a very hard thing to achieve, you really have to work hard to find actors who don't have that contemporary energy -- but they pulled it off.

It's involving, it's seductive in how it reels you in, it's just all-around impressive as hell.

One bit of advice: if at all possible, do not wait for this to appear on DVD or streaming video. GO SEE IT in a theater, it will be a much better experience.

Honestly, I haven't been this impressed with something in ages.

Don't Bet on Women (1931)

Deadly

[3/10 · 8 November 2015]

What a missed opportunity.

Saw it today at MoMA, just before Howard's "Trial of Vivienne Ware", and it's almost impossible to believe that these two films were made by the same director and just a year apart.

"Trial" is a lightning-fast melodrama, fast even by pre-code standards, and very entertaining. This, on the other hand, has that awful early talkie pacing that you always hear about but rarely see so vividly. It also has uninspired direction and clueless casting of two of the three leading male roles.

J.M. Kerrigan is the hero's 'comic sidekick', the let's-go-out-and-party guy that Edmund Lowe picks up chicks with. Ahh... J.M. KERRIGAN?!! Are they kidding? They couldn't get Lupino Lane, or Roscoe Karns, or... ANYBODY ELSE?!!! Kerrigan seems twenty years too old, and looks for all the world like he wants to sit in a Morris chair sipping port while his dog lies at his feet, dying.

Edmund Lowe is the lead, and he's even worse. He's sincere and naturalistic, but BORING as all get-out. There are no stakes, no 'pep', no color, no comic liveliness. He's just not a comedy guy. If it had had somebody like Frank Fay, say (whose comedies of this period are not bad at all), or Lowell Sherman, or Melvyn Douglas, or...

The rest of the cast is fine -- McDonald, Young, Merkel, all are people who know their way around a comic scene -- but Lowe, Kerrigan, and the pace and direction sink it.

A pity, because the basic idea, dated as it is, is still funny, and this could have been a lot of fun... if only it had been directed and acted by people with a feeling for comedy.

Anyhow, this is what it is. Don't go out of your way for it.

Az Men Git, Nemt Men (1982)

"Can't Stop The Krekhtsing"

[1/10 · 5 July 2015]

Yes, it's the all-Yiddish disco musical of 1982... And it's even worse than it sounds. Absolutely hilarious, and not at all in the way its makers intended. Dictionary-definition 'kitsh'.

By the time this movie was made, Yiddish theatre (which Yiddish cinema had always been an outgrowth of) had essentially degenerated to simple-minded musicals for nostalgia-hungry audiences with no taste. And that's what this is. Not 'lightweight and witty' -- this ain't no Lubitsch -- just simple-minded. Okay, moronic.

Not only is the script awful -- Israeli yeshiva boy Bodo's cool-cat singer brother passes Bodo off as himself to in order avoid meeting a girl his mother wants to set him up with; the girl is a hot New York babe; wacky complications ensue, peppered with infantile 'jokes' -- but the filmmaking is cheap, clueless, and incompetent.

Cheap: the whole thing is shot in some kind of hotel that's closed for the season, apparently because someone thought it would make the movie look 'slick'. Actually it looks like a cheap resort hotel from the '70's. And it's STARVED for extras. (One particularly awful number -- an utterly pointless 'drunk' duet that's about as funny as a hemorrhage -- is shot in a patio area with chairs stacked on the tables, because there's no one to sit in them. Though at one point a chorus boy runs on behind the singers, twirls around a pole, and runs off again. I have no idea why.)

Clueless: Bodo, 51 years old at the time, is playing a teenage Yeshiva boy. He has no beard, probably because it was thought that would make him look younger. Yeah, sure. On the other hand, his 'wise old rabbi' has perhaps the phoniest-looking beard in the history of motion pictures. It's colored grey, but not a grey that any human hair has ever been colored.

In an insane attempt to be 'hip' (Did they think it would bring in younger audiences? Were they crazy?), there are actual disco numbers in Yiddish, with blase chorines in unitards and leg warmers "dancing" on a cheap platform stage. But the stage has no 'skirt' around it, so you can see that it's actually just a wooden platform covering some kind of storage space full of boxes. (Was there an art director credited (blamed) for this movie?)

Incompetent: The director had worked as an A.D. on the legendary "Hill 24 Does Not Answer", one of the movies that started Israeli cinema. Evidently he didn't learn too much. He went on to direct a few features, then this, which somebody must have seen at some point, because it ended his career. Basics of film language are missing. Ed Wood could do better than this. The best scenes look like bad '60's television. As we say in Yiddish, 'feh'.

Also, I mustn't forget to mention that the singer brother, who's supposed to be some sort of sex symbol but looks more like a retired mailman, can't actually sing (he 'flats' all over the place), and he dances like one of those inflatable men you see outside used-car lots.

Honestly, this is like really, really bad community theater, only it's in Yiddish.

Now don't get me wrong... This is actually hilarious if you're in the right frame of mind. The right gay audience, say, would be in hysterics over this.

Let's just say it's not for everyone.

But it does have subtitles...

Careless Lady (1932)

Featherweight and very funny

[8/10 · 3 January 2015]

This one is a real surprise. You've never heard of it, but catch it if you can, you'll have a ball. Sophisticated, witty, sharp -- exactly the kind of thing that was over by time we entered the war. 'Trouble In Paradise', 'Jewel Robbery', 'By Candlelight'; it really was the era to laugh at the troubles of the rich.

It must have had quite an element of fantasy for a Depression audience, in that everybody in it seemed to have money, even the young innocent (Bennett) who gets in hot water when she passes herself off as a sophisticate; today you'll fantasize, too, about being surrounded by all that beautiful art deco design. They certainly dressed well back then, at least those with money did, and they all seemed so civilized.

The plot is beautifully developed, and the cast is interesting, too: the great Josephine Hull ("Harvey", "Arsenic And Old Lace") in one of her first movie appearances; Fortunio Bonanova (the singing teacher in "Citizen Kane") as a cartoon "wolf"; Susan Fleming, later Mrs. Harpo Marx, in one of her few movies; Minna Gombell, one of the great 'smart broads'; and a guy named Weldon Heyburn who seems to be doing a Clark Gable impression, which is very surprising, as Gable was just getting started himself.

Very nicely directed, too -- it moves well, and has some of those stylish scene transitions that you see from time to time in this era. The only disappointment is the two leads, who are okay, nothing more. If instead of John Boles and Joan Bennett it had been people with a real flair for this kind of comedy -- Melvyn Douglas and Myrna Loy, say -- this would have been a major title. As it is, watch it for the script and the texture of its era.

The Road to Hong Kong (1962)

A very pleasant surprise.

[7/10 · 24 December 2014]

I know this one has not much of a reputation, but I really, really enjoyed it. A big improvement, too, from the two prior ones.

It's not a masterpiece. The feeding scene, stolen from Chaplin's "Modern Times", is a pale imitation (as was Woody Allen's later imitation of it in "Bananas"); Joan Collins, as has been said before, has no flair for comedy whatsoever; the "special effects" running gag is kind of feeble; and Robert Morley is not dark enough a presence for the heavy. (It's also extremely non-p.c., but that's not a fault in my book.)

On the upside, there is an air of utter silliness about it that's very appealing, which their ages actually add to -- it's really fun to see them as middle-aged guys doing the exact same nonsense they did when they were younger, it makes it all sort of "meta". And their timing and chemistry are absolutely spectacular -- as good as they've ever been. Maybe better. And the script is genuinely funny. And the cameos add a lot. A couple of good songs, too.

Very funny, particularly the earlier scenes. And probably the last movie Hope made that isn't utterly embarrassing.

August: Osage County (2013)

Fine acting. Script is trash.

[2/10 · 5 January 2014]

In the late 19th century a common playwriting trope was to build a play to moments of intensity where the star would astonish the audience with the brilliance of his or her acting. The plays had no real purpose other than to provide those moments; there was no dramatic core, no purpose to them other than that. Those kinds of plays, like "The Count of Monte Cristo", which O'Neill skewers in "Long Day's Journey Into Night", are dismissed today as tripe, as dated and manipulative nonsense.

"August: Osage County" is exactly that, only modern and written for an ensemble cast rather than for a single star. Sure, the acting is very good, but so what? Who cares? Where's the story? What's the point? Why are we spending time with these people?

Understand, my complaint is not that "August: Osage County" is depressing, it's that it's cheap. Many fine movies are miserably depressing, but they're honest, they're driven by something other than a desire to create 'actory' moments; "The Swimmer" comes to mind, as does "The Night Porter", and "Enemies: A Love Story", and "The Bicycle Thief", and "Ikiru"... This thing, on the other hand... it feels like Tracy Letts just piled misery upon misery upon misery for no reason other than his belief that that gets you taken seriously. And considering the awards the play received, he was right, which hardly speaks well for the state of dramatic criticism.

At one point (spoiler ahead), after he's already been larding the suffering on with a trowel for quite a while, there's a death scene -- and while watching it I just couldn't help myself, I laughed out loud.

Seriously, what is the point of this? In playwriting class, the first principle they teach is that "drama is the day the change occurred". In other words, if there is no chance of change, if the characters (at least the protagonist) are not wrestling with an inner conflict that could resolve itself several ways, then there is no drama. That's the case with "August: Osage County". You might as well be watching a B-Western for all the real depth there is to the characters. Each time you're introduced to a character (with one or two very minor exceptions) you know exactly who they are now and exactly who they'll be at the end of the movie. It's just 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'.

In a word, trash.

The Gong Show Movie (1980)

Hilarious

[9/10 · 29 May 2012]

Fans of Downey Sr. (which should be an enlarging group now that the box set of his early titles has appeared) should not miss this movie. It's Downey's humor all over the place, and it's a riot. The non-Downey parts -- the stuff about 'the miserable life of Chuck Barris' -- is just as appealing, in its way; it's great cult trashola. Moreover, Barris, who'd never convince anyone that he was a genuine actor, has great charm, and projects a sense of distance and disbelief that works very well as we watch him bouncing off the madness.

Granted, it helps if you remember the awful TV series, but I don't think it's an absolute necessity. You're probably better off watching "Chafed Elbows" or "Putney Swope" first... if those tickle you, you're ready for this.

Perhaps the movie's strangest quality is how undated it is: watch one episode of "America's Got Talent" and you're right back in the Gong Show era. It's an odd statement about our country -- or maybe contemporary civilization -- that can we watch this stuff without retching, but in any case, we can, and could, at least as far back as the '70's.

I must say I do find it hard to believe that Downey did not actually direct at least parts of this; Barris is the only director credited, but the atmosphere of much of it is Downey through-and-through. Yippee!

Mission to Moscow (1943)

This inspires thoughts re another movie

[16 August 2007]

I haven't had the misfortune of seeing "Mission To Moscow" in many years, and I remember very little of it; I do remember it being rather silly and shallow, and it's illustrative of where the Roosevelt administration's 'head was at' (notice, by contrast, that nothing like this was produced in Churchill's England); but the comments here do inspire one depressing thought.

To all those folks who point out what this piece of idiocy covers up:

Take a look at one or two of the IMDb reviews of "Silk Stockings", an excellent musical that has fun at the Soviets' expense. The writers of those reviews evidently know nothing at all of the genocides (Stalin had Hitler beat, at the very lowest estimate, by over two to one); they just know that one is not supposed to criticize the communists. Zero knowledge of history, and these (presumably young) people are our future.

If that isn't depressing...

Chafed Elbows (1966)

Brilliant.

[10/10 · 24 August 2005]

First off, where did those preposterous ratings come from? Have any of those nincompoops actually seen the movie?

It's certainly understandable if they hadn't, as it is EXTREMELY rare. More's the pity. This movie is a whoopee, stops-out, take-no-prisoners satire of absolutely everything: independent film-making, pop music, American mores, psychology, politics, family, education -- whatever popped into Downey's head. It's completely plot less and totally absurd, and it feels very much like a "Monty Python" episode made by New Yorkers in the '60's.

It's absolutely hilarious and I could go on for days about the performances too (why didn't Elsie Downey and Lawrence Wolf have huge careers beyond their films with Downey?), but let's just leave it at this: if you ever get the chance, SEE IT.