kuciak Reviews

Genocide (1968)

Interesting Propaganda Movie

[7/10 · 7 September 2014]

More or less I am sort of responding to the first review that was done in 2009, which was very negative of the film. I think that the film is interesting, and watching it you realize why the film may never have been released overseas.

Many years ago, when I was in College, there was a white individual, who after watching a black exploitation film made a very rude comment, especially considering the one black female in the room. "Now I understand the black mentality". Sadly, in watching this film made in 1968, one could almost say the same exact thing.

In the film, the Americans are played as if an occupying force in Japan, at least on this Island. the Americans, especially with the lead American character, one could almost say he is portrayed as some kind of Nazi type official, though he does not go and execute people. A little bit is made of the War that the United States fought Japan in the Pacific, though now as one of the Japanese characters does say in the film, and paraphrasing, "now we're friends.

Yet watching the film, the Japanese seem to be portrayed as innocent victim. Any Japanese person who is bad in the film,, is actually working for the Communists. Much of course is made of nuclear war, and of course the blame somehow will be put on the Americans, and perhaps in this case somewhat understandably.

But however here is the kicker, Their is this one woman, who looks way to young for her to have been a young victim of the holocaust, as she is somehow shown to be somewhat sexy. Of course, she is the one behind some experimentation of the insects, and working with the communists, wants to get revenge on the world for what happened to her. Of course in this case it is the Germans who are portrayed as the villains who did this to her, but to blame another country, and not your own, as the Japanese creators of this movie have done, and it is well documented that Japan was just as bad as Nazi Germany was, and many POW's were treated far worse by the Japanese than the Germans.

In some ways, what happened to her in world war II is somehow made to equal what happened to the Japanese in WWII with the dropping of the atomic bomb, but of course there is no mention in this movie of the atrocities that Japan was responsible for. Japan is only shown as innocent victim of American aggression. Also of course highlighted, with the participation of Chico Rolands, a black actor who it would be interesting to know more about, and the alleged racism that is shown in this film by his American white superiors. One amazing scene certainly demonstrates that.

Merits of the film are that it is rather suspenseful, and in many cases you do care about some of the characters. One person here gives his life in what is rather moving, and of course the way he dies for what is a greater good. Also the last image of the film of someone in a boat was touching.

They Came to Rob Las Vegas (1968)

If Antonioni or Bergman had been the director

[9/10 · 2 March 2013]

When this film came out in 68, being that it was foreign, and the worst crime of all, dubbed, it was generally ignored or poorly received by the American film critics. One so called reviewer (I wonder if he really saw the film) wrote that it was not the worst movie of the year, but it will do.

Some have suggested that Michael Angelo Antonioni might have seen this film and been influenced by it when he made his critically panned Zabriske's Point. Certainly this film has been influenced by Antonioni.

The film is about a robbery of an armored truck, and the unusual circumstances that complicate matters as three sides collide. However underlying it perhaps is a comment on modern society of the time, and the idea of wanting to reclaim a lost or innocent past of heroism, even if it is criminal. This is brought out in the character of Geno, played by Jean Servais who became better known due to his staring role in the 56 heist film Rififi from the mid 50's, and I think it is no accident that he is in the film, though briefly, as his participation may mean a heroic past, but one that will not work in 1968. Gary Lockwood as Tony, was 31 at the time, while Servias was 58. The film makes references to the past as with movie posters seen on a street that would probably have not been seen on those streets of 68, and one of Tony's friends referring to some of Geno's friends as from a George Raft movie.

There is also an interesting connection made between Geno, and the adversary to Tony, named Skorsky played by Lee J Cobb. One man has lived in the past and will die with it, and the other Skorsky (note they were about the same age)has adapted to this new age, outwardly respectable, but below a criminal. He will want out of his criminal activities, though as one of the mob men points out, it is not easy, and "you have eaten off the table". Tony will refer to both of Geno and Sorsky as ugly, but the meaning is different.

ideas of loyalty are also noted. The older group of Geno's feel a sense of loyalty, no mater how stupid something is. But as it will be shown with Tony's group, loyalty might not mean much, unless you are the older man of that group, who will remain loyal to the end. Some may be turned off by the fact that some of the ones with poor loyalty are shown to be gay, and probably today would not pass muster. But this was 1968, and the portrayal of gays were not always shown in a good light. But it is interesting that Tony is shown to have them as friends, if not loyal ones.

Many have criticized the cast of Lockwood, feeling that he is a weak leading man. I felt this way at the beginning, feeling that Jack Palance would have been better as Tony, and perhaps in relation to Geno more believable. While Palance would have been a more attractive choice, Lockwood is showing the modern man of that time, and I think is the proper choice. As the film gets to its climax, I realized that his casting was correct, and we see that Tony is a man who perhaps has been in great pain and guilt, but until the near end, has been able to hide it from us and his partners, and most certainly Elke Sommer as Ann. Interesting also that Geno had accused Tony of not being interested in money, while Ann a few minutes later in the film will say otherwise.

Elke Sommer has been said by some was only eye candy here in the film. But I think she represents a woman who is looking into the future while Tony may be in the past. Yes she is pretty here, but I think that she brings out the sense of being insecure in her role of a woman in 1968, and her involvement and use by both Tony and Skorsky, who she is having a relationship on the side despite his being married. her character and thoughts brought to my mind the women's liberation movement that was just around the corner.

jack Palance as Russel is great, I like the way Palance uses reading glasses in the film. While he is introduced at one time as James Bond by Skorsky, he is different from conventional Hollywood hero police types. He is not shown with a girl friend or wife, he also doesn't kill anyone, or punch anyone out. I also liked his relationship with the local police chief, the camaraderie they have, and loyalty.

Also the film does not make us hate anyone. We sometimes are made to understand Skorsky, and wish him to be able to be free of the mob. He is also not the most cold blooded character in the film, that person is also against conventions.

With its haunting music, used perfectly throughout the film. There is some lapses of logic, but this lapse helps move the story along. Often wonderful editing is used. If this is not director Antonio Isasi-Isasmendi of Spain greatest film, perhaps he needs a long overdue retrospective.

Unearthly Stranger (1963)

A Strangely Feminist Angle

[8/10 · 5 January 2013]

Thank goodness they did not make this film in color. Certainly color would have made this film at the time less the masterpiece that the film is. Also color might have made us concentrate not on this first rate story and acting, but also the bare budget that this film most likely had.

While many have compared the film to Invasion of the Body Snatchers and I Married an Alien From Outer Space, I think that it has more in common with another film that was made the same year of 1963, The American production of The Day Mars Invaded Earth. Both films concern an alien entity basically fighting back in insidious ways to prevent scientists from the planet earth into invading their planet, and seem to infiltrate the Earth much the same way in both films.

What is intriguing about the film as I have written in my Summary title is its feminist angle. Years before women were demanding equal pay for equal work, this film presents a world where women are actually valued more as not being equal to men, but also as somewhat of a prized possession.

After our introduction of the main character, it is interesting to note that when we go back into flashback, we see men in suits scouring around doing their important work, while two women on a staircase are cleaning and scrubbing on the floors of this building, doing what can be described as menial work. The next is when we see the first victim meeting with his secretary played by Jean Marsh before her Upstairs Downstairs triumph. She appears to be the dutiful secretary of a smart man. Subordinate to his needs When we meet Patrick Newell who would later go on to fame playing Mother in The Avengers, an obnoxious investigator, he is making rather stupid comments about John Neville (the main character of the films) wife. Later on when we meet the wife she is playing the dutiful wife of our main protagonist, a stay at home woman of the time.

Yet in many ways the men, accept for Phillip Stone, are not shown to be so smart. Certainly the first victim of the film is careless in revealing what he has discovered. John Neville's character should have thought more clearly about getting married to someone who he has just met, also considering about the vital work and top secret work he is doing. He also shows rather immature behavior to his colleague played by Stone, when he does not apologize for his rude behavior when suggested that he should have done so. Patrick Newell seems very content to eat sweets while investigating, no doubt contributing to his considerable girth, plus appearing to be less than likable.

Stones character will turn out to be the savior of the film in some ways, as he rescues Neville;s character from certain death. While Neville is intelligent, it is Stone who is portrayed really as perhaps one of few who can save mankind, with his rational thinking.

Gabriella Lucidi the wife, who made very few film appearances is effective in her brief time on screen as the alien form who has succumbed to be a female human being, and who later will be denounced as having been weak and not like the other stronger beings that are among the humans on earth. As a woman, Gabriella Lucidi's character it is suggested may really be the woman of the past. Not content really to be subservient to a man's needs. The children probably fear her because they realize that with women like her, they would probably not have been born, and are more aware of the threat that her kind is.

Until his death in the film, we are somewhat led to believe that Patrick Newell's character is the real villain, the surprise of course is that it is Jean Marsh, who by declaring that not all of her life forms are like Neville's supposed wife, is suggesting really the coming of a new woman, one who may not wish to be subordinate to men.

If one does not think that this might be the true about this film, the ending of the film, with the eight or so women, who are just staring at the two main male leads, suggesting that they are alien life forms as well, should really leave no doubt. Why have these life forms not been shown to take the forms of men? As for the ending, I don't think that it is meant as an idea that our two men are doomed, but more of a symbol of 'they are among us,'

Cabo Blanco (1980)

a return to bronson's European roots

[6/10 · 13 April 2012]

It is no secret that Charles Bronson became a star in Europe before he became one in the US because of Death Wish. In Cabo Blanco, somewhat a takeoff of 'Casablanca', Bronson starred in the most European looking of all his movies. Yes he did films in Europe like Love and Bullits, and there is a brief sequence in Naples of the superior 'The Mechanic.' But due to casting, it has a feel of a European movie, the most since Someone Behind the Door'. Of course, the film does take place in Peru, and was filmed in Mexicao, but certainly the participation of the film with Dominique Sanda, Fernando Rey, and Camilla Spav certainly gives the film that feel. Also it is only the other time that Bronson worked with Jason Robards, (Once Upon a Time in The West) this time as a villain.

It is also perhaps the most romantic film that Bronson has done, and all though he was 58 when he did the film, he looks the younger than he had ever looked since his role as Jeff in 'Violent City'.

It is also a curious puzzle in Bronson's career, as it did not get much theatrical play in the US, if at all. Why this is has never been explained. On first viewing, it is an entertaining film, at least I was when I first saw it in 86 on video. Perhaps one of the problems also was that it was short at 87 minutes, and Bronson's popularity was on decline, though, sadly, the Cannon films with Death Wish II, and 10 to Midnight, with its incredible violence would shoot Bronson back up to big box office status.

It would be, I believe, the last time we would see Bronson without a shirt on. Perhaps he might have been having trouble keeping that athletic looking body that he had, less than 20 years later he would need a hip replacement.' In fact, in the film, he is seen that way from the back, as he walks away from camera, it is almost as if he is saying through this scene, you won't see me with my shirt off again.

This is a fun movie to watch, also if you are a person who likes to see a lot of naked women, you won't be disappointed. Though I don't recommend it for that.

The film does have its flaws though, The song 'The Very Thought Of You, gets played to many times that it becomes a cliché. Also the climax, and some of the scenes before that are so contrived and silly. I would also suggest that it is condescending to some of the supposedly native Peruvians, though this might harkin back to the days of the 40 American movies, which have some scenes which begin in black and white. However, if you think about it, the ending shot is ironic, and can make one think. The narration does add a veneer of sophistication to the film. Listen very closely at the end, as you might miss some important details.

The White Buffalo (1977)

An allegory of white man's guilt

[13 April 2012]

First, thank you if you are reading my review. Second, I highly recommend if you read mine, you read Jaibo of England review. It is one of the best reviews I have ever read here, and I feel that he fully gives one of the best analysis of a film I have ever seen.

First, when this film came out, it was a bomb with both the critics and audiences, though I have recently read that it was a big hit in Asian countries. One writer has said this is the film that sank Bronson's career as a superstar, which is not true. During this era of Bronson films, his films after Hard times were really not all that well received.

One problem with the critics of the film was their complaint about the silly looking White Buffalo, also the complaint was that it was trying to be a Jaws on Land. I believe I remember Bronson talking about this future film on the Mike Douglass show, and he appeared to have high hopes for it, mentioning Richard Sale the screen writer.

When, however, all is said and done, and the film is finished. You have a point where a film is a new product, put out on the market. After that, and a lot of thanks to DVD's and other media, we can reexamine a film years later, and White Buffalo deserves reexamination.

First, after Hard Times, I think that this is Bronson's best movie. Somehow, I feel that if this had come after Hard Times, it might have gotten better reviews, and seen for what I think what it is, an examination of white man's guilt.

In the previous decade,with the civil rights movement, the Farm workers movement, and also the rising of Native American people, it often seemed that white Americans were being accused of somehow being enemies of humanity, and should somehow feel white guilt. White Buffalo metaphorically explores this idea through the character of Charles Bronson as Wild Bill Hickok.

When Hickok arrives in the first town, he comes across a bunch of bones of dead buffalo, watching this scene, I could not help but think of the death camps of Europe during world war II. What is also interesting in this sequence, is that the first people who try to kill him are members of the US Cavalry, in a bar, by orders of one Custer, who does survive. According to IMDb, his name is Tom, whether he is supposed to be a George Custer is probably the case. Instead of previous films of lets say a John Wayne, where the cavalry comes to the rescue, here we are almost given an idea, and it the behaviors, of these men not being much different from German soldiers as depicted in films like "Where Eagles Dare".

Hickok of course in the film is haunted by nightmares of a white buffalo, that he feels he must kill. He is told that the last white buffalo was killed, but that of course will not be the case. As another, he is told by Charlie (Jack Warden), is also around. He also says in his dream, this buffalo of his nightmares is in snow (white). and it is there that this buffalo must be killed. When Charlie asks Bill how many men he has killed, Bill can't say, but he tells Charlie that most of them were red men. He even states that an Indian is a better man dead.

Will Sampson as Sitting Bull, wants to kill the Buffalo, because his child was killed by it, and his child can not rest peacefully in the other world until the buffalo is killed. When we see the Buffalo going through his village, killing all along the way, in this Kwaidanesqe sequence, we are reminded of earlier films from say 'Little Big Man' when the US Cavalry was shown massacring an Indian village. So while not a nightmare of Sitting Bull, it is certainly his metaphor of stopping the white man from trampling on his tribe.

While it is true that Bill and Charlie help Sitting Bull kill 15 other Indians who would kill Sitting Bull, one realizes that Bill see's this as getting rid of 15 other Indians who might be a threat to Charlie and himself, not out of compassion, and also as a way to hopefully make this lone Indian not try to cause them harm. Later Sitting Bull will repay the favor to Bill by killing someone out to get him.

While the buffalo in Bills dreams is a metaphor of his guilt, and what he has done to others, it is clear that Bill does not understand the meaning of his nightmare. This is brought out when he gives a speech to Sitting Bull about this expansion of the white settler, and that this is just part of the cycle of nature.

This part of this not understanding, is perhaps some what is Bill is on the way to death. In the end, by his one more time befriending Sitting Bull, Charlie will reject and leave Bill, and sitting Bull will say we must never meet again. Bill is more lonely now, and his involvement in this venture will as we will know from history, and learn at the end will not save him. Sitting Bull we are informed will have been killed a year after Bill. Both will be killed by white men.

How sad that critics at the time, and some still today did not view the film as a poetic work of art that it is.

The Stone Killer (1973)

Could have been a good film

[5/10 · 25 March 2012]

First the film has a great poster. The beginning is good, and the end is interesting. But in the middle the film is very uninvolving. The film also does not seem to know what it wants to be. Does it want to be Dirty Harry, does it want to be The French Connection, or does it want to be The Godfather. The one character actor who really I think is the most interesting of all is the Mafia boss played by Martin Balsam. Watching him, one has to think that he would have been interesting Playing Don Corleone in the Godfather, or even the Fernando Rey character in French Connection I and II.

As the poster says, ;This cop plays dirty', but sadly, for the rest of the movie, Torrey is a bore. I wonder how the character of Torrey in the John Gardner stories, was, their were apparently two of them, and who knows, maybe if this film had been both a critical and financial success, the character. like Dirty Harry would have continued. Dirty Harry success lies in not only that we had a great villain, a different kind of law enforcement officer than previous films had shown, but we got to know Harry throughout the movie. We really don't get to know who Torrey is, why he is the way he is. I am a big Bronson fan, but here in Stone Killer, I think we get to see the indifference that Bronson would show in some of his later efforts. Previously Winner and Bronson had teamed to make one of his most interesting characters, that of Bishop in the Mechanic, which is I think their best collaboration.

I think the people involved in this film missed a great opportunity in making a movie that could have focused on the idea of using Viet Nam Vets to be used as a hit squad, which was original. With the unpopular war winding down, it could have asked, what next, as thousands would return, and to what opportunities for them.

I'm sure that Winner and De Laurentis realized that this film wasn't very good, but went on to release it realizing that in Europe the film would do well as Bronson was a huge star their, though not yet in the US.

Burt Reynolds once said that they should remake films that were not very good when first released. Watching the Stone Killer, I think would be interesting to remake, with the same time period and local. With the Viet Nam angle, it would possibly make people wonder about what will happen when our veterans return from Iraq and Aphganistan and Iraq.

Johnny Cool (1963)

A film that had to influence other movies

[8/10 · 13 March 2012]

Johnny Cool is a real revelation. that it was produced by Peter Lawford, and directed by a William Asher, whose Beach Party movies seemed to celebrate American life as this film condemns it. It also may seem stranger when one sees the people who participated in it, some in only cameos, like Sammy Davis Junior, or Joey Bishop. However, when you consider that Vitoria De Sica, who had once been considered the Cary Grant of Italian films, you may realize, that some of these people who we looked at as entertainers, may have also had ambitions to create art. Johnny Cool is art.

Many have commented that it is similar to Point Blank. This is true in many ways,however, another film that no one seems to have mentioned that has also some connection to, I think is John Frankenheimers Seconds. Those who have seen Seconds I think will know what I mean.

Whereas Johnny Cool came out in 63, Seconds and Point Blank came out in 66 and 67. Silva I think was so good in this film as Jonny Cool, that he was encouraged to come to Europe to become a film star their. However, the only film that I think of his European films that matches Johnny Cool at this time as a good film is 'Hail Mafia, that he would make some 2 to three years later with Jack Klugman and Eddie Constantine. Johnny Cool I think also bears resemblances to Machine Gun McCain with John Casavetes, which has a theme Song Similar to John Cools by Sammy Davis Junior. he last killing of Johnny Cool in this film also reminds me somewhat of Seijun Suzuki's 'Branded to Kill', and has some similarities for me to another dark Japanese crime film of the time, 'Blackmail Is My Business.' When we see Johnny Cool, first he is a young Italian boy in Sicily who has just saved his Mother, but it will be to no avail, as she is killed right after wards, and perhaps foreshadows Silva's character's failure at the end of the film. As a young boy, he will meet right after wards Salvatore Gulliano, a real life person who would lead a Sicilian resistance movement. The inclusion of Guilliano is interesting, in that though he was apparently killed in 1950, their was a belief by some that his death was faked, and that he would end up in the US. In this way Johnny Cool runs with this premise, and suggests what might have been of Guilianno in America.

That also, the first scenes we see of Silva, as his real person in the mountains of Sicily, will remind one of Neo Realism with its black and white photography. Also, does not Silva as that person not remind one of Fidel Castro, with his beard.

Though this is in Sicliy, one cannot help in these scenes to feel that their is some Latin American feel. The people in the village seem more down to earth people, than the ones we will see in America.

Also here, Richard Anderson as the American Correspondent, asks Silva's character about having once fought with the Americans, to which Silva's character replies that a man fights for himself. This gives the implications that the Silva character at this time may be fighting against the Americans. When he says, from the Germans we got these guns, holding a machine gun, one can't help but feel some present equation between the Germans of the 40's, to the Americans of the 60's, as they were aiding totalitarian regimes against the communists.

When we jump to America, we will be introduced to a very sinister and unpleasant America. Perhaps this film would have had a bigger box office (I don't know what that was) had it been filmed in Color. This is however one film that benefits artistically with black and white, especially when one goes to LA and Las Vegas. With its black and white photography, one does not get a feeling of beauty, but instead a dreary feeling, especially during a swimming pool scene, that might have looked too beautiful in color. Also surprising to me, Las Vegas when one considers the participation of Davis, Lawford, and Bishop, is not shown as a place one should really want to go to, as perhaps the earlier Rat Pack film Oceans 11 did. One gets the feeling that this town is really the place of losers, and people who can't really pay their bills.

Elizabeth Montgomery, as the love interest of Silva, is presented as I think the mixed up, naive American. She is drawn to his tough guy persona. However she will bring destruction to him, even though one should consider that he has saved her life from possibly a similar fate that he will have. First, after killing Mort Sahl's character, he will have plans to leave and abandon what he is doing. However, she will sadly convince him to continue. The next two victims that he does in we will have no sympathy for, so we continue to root for him. However, she betrays him stupidly when she realizes two children of one of his victims could have been killed. Instead of calling the police, she will out of her own cowardliness, because she is guilty as an accessory to murder, call the very criminals he has been fighting against. In many ways, her character, represents 'the common American' of the time, just before American involvement in Viet Nam, unaware that even in wars sanctioned by the US, innocent children could get killed, or not have really thought about that.

A very dark, disturbing view of Americana, from people you would not expect from. Get a load of one of the law enforcement people, with his glasses, one dark, one regular. What is the meaning behind that. I wanted to writer more, but with only a 1000 limit, could not.

The Warped Ones (1960)

Not enjoyable, but interesting film from Japan in 1960

[20 January 2012]

If someone tells you that the youth of yesterday, were so much better behaved, have them see this film from Japan in 1960.

The film has been compared to Breathless by Godard. The one difference though I would say is in its protagonist. In Breathless, Jean Paul Belmondo's character was kind of cool, and I could see perhaps young people wanting to be like him. The protagonist if any think does not have these qualities. He comes across as crazy, almost psychotic, and a real loser. In many ways his character is more real than Belmondo's. I am not sure, but I think the film might be taking place in Tokyo, but the Japanese city we are presented with is nothing like the Paris of Breathless. It is ugly, you can almost feel the heat, and you wonder how it must even smell.

Like this directors later film, 'Black Sun' He also seems to be criticizing the use of music in the way it might block people from reality. Their is a scene in a bar, where jazz music our protagonist enjoys listening to, when the lead female protagonist, who had been raped by him, stops the music from playing, and he almost goes crazy It results him driving to the ocean with his black friend, (Chico Rolands from Black Sun), and go swimming. It is also a criticism of modern art, and those who supposedly practice it, or admire it. Though at the same time, I wonder the way the director films this movie, especially the stolen auto sequence at the beginning, if this film might be artsy at times in itself, and not know it.

At the same time, hovering over this film, are Westerners, the men who take the women from the Japanese to have for exchange for money. This film I guess is before the big economic boom in Japan, and shows the contempt that Japanese perhaps felt towards the West, especially the US. Their is a line that our protagonist says regarding Jazz, 'the blacks invented it, the whites stole it, and now we have it. We are worse than them.

Chico Roland as Gill is perhaps the one foreigner this film respects. Being black, it is ironic as Japan has been accused of being racist towards blacks, which was somewhat demonstrated in Black Sun. I would like to learn more about Chico Rolands, who he is, and how he began working in Japan. It is regrettable that Criterion on their Eclipse series, didn't supply audio commentaries which might shed some light. Even here on IMDb, their is no info where and when he was born or if he died. I do wish his character was somewhat expanded in the film, and we would know who this character is.

The ending is interesting. I am for a woman's right to choose, but the films ending is the only one I think of that can come close to making an anti-abortion statement, as our protagonist looks up at the sky ceiling of the hospital, as if looking up to god.

Machete (2010)

Robert Rodriquez is still bombing Malta

[5/10 · 20 January 2012]

Recently someone talking about the occupy movement commented that marches are good, but you can only march so long, you have to organize. That comment reminded me of this film, which has been quite a while since I've seen it. Danny Trejo and Jeff Fahey, Cheech Marin are really good in this film. However the same cannot be said for Robert De Niro (when has he really given a good performance recently or been in a good film0 Don Johnson, and Steven Segal.

I will also say, this film starts out with a great bang, and their is a scene in a hospital which has to be seen to be believed, and perhaps the film should be seen for that great scene, which I think might be one of the 100 greatest scenes ever in a motion picture.

the opening scene before the credits reminds me of something that the late Sam Fuller once, said, basically that the audience has to get a 'hard on', so you can hook the audience. This he does. The film continues with one big scene after the other, however, after a while I found myself wanting the film to end, as all it seemed to have was an opening act, and nothing more, over and over again.

We learn at the beginning that Machete (Trejo) has suffered a tremendous loss, however Rodriguez never invests the film in this fact, it is totally forgotten. Also, he has missed a great opportunity with Steven Segal as the drug lord villain. Segal's entrance at the beginning is truly memorable, could say it almost rivals Henry Fonda's opening in Sergio Leones Once Upon a Time in The West. Once again, their is no investment made in his character, as he disappears through most of the movie only to come back again as more of a side show joke, which really isn't all that funny or entertaining.

Robert Deniro and Don Johnson, respectively as a bigoted Tesas politician and Don Johnson, as a vicious killer of a group of vigilantes who kill illegal immigrants trying to cross the border are such cardboard cutups, though what happens to the Deniro character in the end is ironic. Yet these are truly cardboard characters, and nothing more, their acting isn't funny, scary or anything of interest. This is specially sad for Deniro. Robert Mitchum when working with Deniro on the 75 film The Last Tycoon, made fun of Deniro's acting seriousness. Perhaps if he were alive today and saw Deniro's performance here he would punch Deniro in the nose and say get back to the way you used to be. I realize that this film is supposed to be a go back to the 60's and early 70's of the so called 'Grind House' films, However I did not know that it was supposed to show what made some of these films so awful, something that the film 'Grindhouse' did not show.

I liked Cheech Marin's role as a priest, though I think that some people who are Catholic's or Christians may find his role offensive, and it has nothing to do with his being a priest.

Mr. Rodriguez has made a film here which could have been somewhat controversial, but he has really tried to take an easy way out and not offend anyone in the slightest, and with the poor cartoonish atmosphere of the film, he does not succeed. The film may want to be a comedy, but it isn't all that funny, and becomes rather tedious.

I remember seeing his first feature El Mariachi, and how much promise I felt he held. It was a charming low budget film. Except for this two followup films with Antonio Banderras, 'Sin City', and the Planet Terror Episode of Grind House he really hasn't shown all that much.

I guess it was back in the 90's when he collaborated on that Vampire film with actor George Clooney. I could help but think of the body of great work that Mr. Clooney has had since that film. It reminds me of a joke that my German Mother told me that went around during World War II. First I don't wish to offend Italian people, but it went like this. '1941, Germany invades Russia, Italy bombs Malta. 1956 Germany crosses the Misisipi, Italy bombs Malta.

Cheaper to Keep Her (2011 Video)

A Play with a hidden racist message

[2/10 · 17 January 2012]

I was supposed to go see this play with my girl friend in Oakland California, but did not because of the Ticket Master price add on. I was angry at Ticket Master at the time, but now have to thank them.

I am a European American, by Girl friend is African American. I have seen with her the movies of Tyler Perry, and also so the stage musical of Color Purple. As for J. Johnson's Cheaper to Keep her, I rented out the DVD. When my girl friend saw the DVD, she was not impressed, and I was somewhat in shock.

Imagion a scenario, where a black is shown to be somewhat of a sexual freak for white women, and that a white man, shoots a gun at him. Later we learn, that the black man has been actually killed by this white, man, the white man because of his cleverness gets away with it, and we are supposed to laugh at that. Could one imagine the outrage. In Cheaper to Keep her, and white woman in sleeping with a married black man, and she is later as we learn killed by a black woman, and this black woman gets away with it, and the audience is supposed to find this funny. yet their has been no outrage of this situation in the play which very much reminded me of the Nicole Simpson murder in the infamous OJ Simpson trial which gravely divided the United States on racial lines.

I wondered how my girl friend or I would have felt at this play. I wondered how a white woman with her black boy friend or husband would have felt. I have spoken to some white women who have dated black man, and some of the problems that they have encountered with black women.

In the extras, a black woman is interviewed, and she says 'I booed the villain, In 'Cheaper to Keep Her', I have no doubt to whom she was referring to. In a certain way, 'Cheaper to Keep Her' reminded me of the so called Blaxpoittion films of the 70's, though in some ways they were really 'get whitey' films. In those years however, if you went to see these kind of films, you knew what to expect, and in many cases they were made by white directors and screenwriters. People who went to see 'Cheaper to Keep Her' were not given this information before they went to see it.

What is perhaps more amazing, is that the main stream media in reviewing this play have not brought this issue out. In most cases it appears to me from black journalists, though some are also white. People who criticize the media, perhaps unfairly, as having a left wing bias might be able to show the coverage of this play as indicative of this belief. It also could show why many don't want to read newspapers any more as they consider them irrelevant. I actually E-mailed the art critic of the Fresno Bee, this yesterday as I write this review. He has not yet gotten back to me. On Ticketmaster, of the 266 audience reviews, only one person stating in a short sentence, 'making humor at the expense of other races' made mention of the racist nature of this play. If Mr. Johnson wants to make such plays, I have no objection, however I feel an audience should be warned.

In the DVD extras, their is an interview with all the performers. The differences I however noted, that while they went into more depth in the characters of black actors, while the white actress seemed to be just happy to be in this play. (I guess we all need the money) Mr. Gary Johnson, one of the actors, talks rather sarcastically and racially why he does not like a white person putting on makeup on him as a black woman is.

Vivica Fox and Brian McNight on one interview I saw discussed how they have a prayer before each performance. The play is filled with religious references about the power of god. How often has one seen people who try to hide their racism behind a belief in God. Is this what Mr. Johnson is trying to do.

The play brought back memories of seeing Preston Sturges's 1942 'Palm Beach Story', a far superior film about divorce, but which was sadly married by a very racist scene at the expense of a black man. I would contend with the supposedly sophisticated trappings of 'Cheaper to Keep Her' this is the most racist performance of this kind of genre of story since 'Palm Beach Story', and perhaps even more so.

From its beginning of the Play, with it's 'Black Family Feud' non African Americans, and certainly those who are involved in mixed racial relationships are not welcome. One audience reviewer suggested that it would have cross over appeal, certainly not for me, unless perhaps you are KKK and 'believe the white bitch got what she deserved'. Also, as some have said in reviews, the play is really not that good.

Paid to Kill (1954)

A subversive film about British and American relations

[19 October 2011]

This is by no means a great film. It however still holds interest for the politics of the film. The producer, Libert had an agreement with Hammer film studios that he would provide known American actors in British films. Forced into this situation, came this interesting film.

Like the Quatermass films with Brian Donlevy, we are shown two men, who are not identified as I remember as Americans, but we can tell are (though Paul Carpenter was born in Canada) One is at the top of the social ladder, and one more so at the bottom. They are supposedly friends, having that "American" bond.

When Paul Carpenter arrives at Dane Clarks home, a party is going on. Though Clark is not their. People are elegantly dressed, but Paul comes very casual to say the least, which really sets him apart from the other people at the party, apparently all British. One of the guests at the party is one of the people who works at Clarkes company, being in the boardroom, who is earlier accused by a colleague of only having this job because of family connections. Clark on the other hand arrives at this party late, possibly from working late. While he is dressed in a tie, he does not go into the milieu of the party, but views his wife from an opening in a wall. As we can see, he is somewhat the chairman of a board, and believes that he has gotten into a business deal that will ruin his company, and his reputation. He has the intent of hiring Paul Carpenter, as Paul to kill him, so that his wife, who he loves deeply can collect the insurance.

Later of course, Clarke's character will realize that the deal that he failed would fail, has gone through, and will make the company a fortune. The plot of this somewhat implausible story is now for Clark to save his own life.

The interesting thing about the film are the relationships. While Clark loves his wife deeply, I somewhat suspected that she did not return this in kind, and of course this would be revealed in the end, and that she does not love Dane Clarks character, a man we can see somewhat had to fight his way to the top, but the Englishman played by Anthony Forwood, a man born into money. She blames Clark for marrying her for her wealth, and says she despises him.

Here is Clarks character, an American head of a British Company, who is often separate from the rest of his people on the board, who is delusional that his British wife loves him, and believe that he has a British friend, who is actually trying to kill him. On the board he has a member who is antagonistic to him, and does not like the methods of which Dane Clarks character will try to get results, considering them underhanded and dangerous. While he is fat and old, while Clark is young and slim, he seems to take the case of defending British honor against Clark, which will culminate in a Turkish bathhouse scene, which has somewhat homosexual overtones, where the Englishman will express his dislike for Clark, to Clarks humiliation.

Clarks relationship with his secretary however is totally different. She is devoted to him, so much so that when he yells at her, one almost feels a sado-masochistic relationship, that he could probably take somewhere and beat her, and she would feel it is showing her devotion to him. Mirroring this is a devotion from a barmaid to Paul Carpenters character, (a caricature of the Ugly American?)a misguided love, though not in the same vane as Clarks relationship with his secretary. Throughout the film, we are shown a disdain of some of the characters for Americana, and also from others a reverence.

One writer here reviewing the film has suggested that with the demise of Clarke's scheming wife, that he will have free reign with his secretary. While she has stated her love for him while he tried to strangle the true love of his wife. It is interesting the last scene, when he carries his wife's dead body from the garden house to the home. He feels that is where her body belongs, and one still sees, though he should really feel disdain, a misguided love for this dead woman. The secretary who loves him, and has saved him from death, seems to follow him dejectedly into the house. Does the American Clark, really love his dead wife for what she represents, some idea of British wealth. It could be argued that he will really not fall in love with his secretary, as she is in the lower status of the British social order.

Black Sun (1964)

who was chico roland

[8 October 2011]

While watching Black Sun, one can't but think of The Defiant Ones, but one also has to look into the future with John Boormans Hell in The Pacific, which feature Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune. It is somewhat about communication, and perhaps how some iconic images sometimes are a barrier to that Communcation.

the main protagonist of the film, Akira, also known as Mei, likes Jazz and Blues, those done by blacks. He is a common criminal, a squatter living in a soon to be demolished Christian church. The Japan we are presented with appears to be that occupied by the occupation of the US. American MP's seem to be all over the place, and appear to have more authority than the Japanese police. It is a Japan still recovering from WWII, with bombed out buildings.

Our main protagonist is a little bit on the crazy side, and would appear that if he were living as a youth in todays culture, he would be right at home. While he lives music by blacks, it will become very apparent that he knows nothing about them, and only thinks he does by the music he hears. He will shortly be getting a rude awakening, and he is confronted by a wounded black soldier named Gil, played by Chico Rolands, who may have killed another white American soldier, though this is never made clear.

During his time with Gil, he will find that he also can hate blacks when Gil does a wrong to him. though he has said to the wounded and desperate Gil, that blacks are his friends.

The film shows stills of what black people suffer in the US at the time, but while this may be an indictment of the US, and perhaps trying to compare some kind of oppression for the Japanese underclass, and well as the American Negro in America, the director in a very key scene in a seedy nightclub, filled with the iconic images of American Jazz musicians, that these so called Japanese fans, are really not much better than the American white racists.

Gil at one point mumbles out, that the pictures of the Jazz musicians are also the enemy. This person is in a very delirious state, but this filmed story will suggest, that when the record collection of our protagonist is destroyed, that it is only then that some form of communication and bond can be really formed, even with the language difficulties. the ending, also is quite powerful, and will explain something about the film.

if their is a problem with the film. It is that sometimes it feels as if the director is making some kind of enthnograph film. often with the Chico Rolland character we can barely make what he is saying. Is this intentional, were his English lines dubbed or subtitled in Japanese at the time of this release. Also he does not appear to be a full fledged human being, as he is sometimes because of the desperate nature of his predicament, just a symbol of 'what blacks suffer in this world'. Also sometimes the performance that he is forced to give, is occasionally embarrassing.

this film has recently been released by Criterion on their Eclipse series, along with four other films, 'The Warped Ones' included. It is ashame their are no extras, as it would be interesting to learn about some of the actors, and the reception it received in Japan. Who was Chico Roland's? was he an American? He and the main protagonist did make other films with this director. I plan to see those other films, and I recommend that readers try to get a hold of this one.

Run, Psycho, Run (1968)

used to be on TV

[23 August 2011]

Can't really review this film. I remember though it appeared to be rather weird. I first had seen it in the paper playing in one of those theaters in San Francisco on Market street, where you could go to see four movies at once. Later it was on TV on Channel 36 in San Jose. The picture quality was not so good being in Oakland.

Even in this DVD age when everything should be available, this film appears not to be.

Perhaps this is no great classic, but considering what HBO, Showtime, and other stations do show, why can't this be seen so we can at least find out for our selves. I have written about Hail Mafia being an interesting film that also has not had the exposure that it deserves. Makes you wonder if this supposedly 1968 film has been lost.

Ice Station Zebra (1968)

A very unusual viewing experience in 68

[17 August 2011]

I was only 11 years old when my father took me to a benefit showing of Ice Station Zebra in 68. I remember he dressed in a suit and tie for this occasion at night time at the Century Theater in Oakland CA when it was still one theater. I also remember getting a program (How I wish I had kept that program through these years)This benefit was for the College that my father worked for at that time, and even at 11 years of age, I kind of realized that viewing Ice Station Zebra, a film I was enjoying, may not have been enjoyed with the other people who were watching. Most of the viewing audience as I recall were women. These however were not the women you would see at a movie theater perhaps even today. For these many women were dressed in their Catholic Nuns garb, and were were from Holly Names College. The next year, or two, they were showing for a benefit a different movie, Brother Sun, Sister Moon. I didn't care to go see that, but thought it was perhaps more appropriate.

It was such a long time ago that I saw the film, and perhaps if I see it again I will realize how dated it is. What struck me at the time, was how Charismatic Patrick McGoohan was. For me he was the most interesting of the bunch. Of course I would realize a few years later how good he really was in the Prisoner. It is a shame however that he could not have had a more stellar movie career. Also for me was the acting of Jim Brown. I could see, that this man was no Sidney Potier, but perhaps an angry black man. Tony Bill's character always seemed to want to reach out to him, as if he had some sort of white guilt, but Browns character would have none of that.

At the time I remember the reviews were not good, but an 11 year old boy enjoyed this movie, with a bunch of Catholic Nuns in the audience. As the years have gone by, I think the film has grown in stature due to this being one of the directing efforts of John Sturgis, and also because Howard Hughes would be watching it almost every night on what I guess was 16mm film stock, before he died. I guess film critics now thought that if Hughes could watch it every night, perhaps the film wasn't so bad after all.

Fade to Black (2006)

your not that important Orson

[30 July 2011]

Of course this is a fictional account, and as the narrator Welles says, "if you want history read a history book." First for people who will see this film, Black Magic, while having Italian help, was really an American film, and Welles is reputed to have directed his own scenes, and if you see that film, you will be able to see his trademark. The film Black Magic, is also not that bad a movie.

I had heard about this film being possibly made in the late 90's, and was surprised to see that it actually had been. The man who directed this film also had ironically directed Othello in 95.

the use of Orson Welles in a thriller is something unusual. I love Orson Welles movies, and wonder if we all were cheated that he was not able to do more. I suspect that I like others are part of an Orson Welles cult following, and that is why such a film is made, with Orson Welles as a lead character.

It is ironic that seven years before this film was made, Leiv Shreibner, (I probably spelled his name wrong) played a very convincing Welles, and sometimes seemed to look like him,. especially when he moved across to an elevator. I couldn't help but feel that it would have been something of a great sequel if the same actor had played Welles in this film and not Danny Huston.

I don't want to suggest that Danny Huston is a failure in this film, but I think that if the film does not really grab our intention and our future memories of film, his performance in the film may be one of the reasons for that. I first remember Danny Huston in the Austrailian film The Proposition, a film in which I feel he gave an excellent performance. In this film however, I think the idea of the filmmakers, and perhaps Huston, was to portray Welles as really an everyman, not a leading figure in a movie that we would like. When he is kissing a woman in a scene, we feel that woman is only kissing him because he is someone important, not someone they find attractive. Even his co-star in the film he is about to do shows scorn for him. Everyone else in the film seems to be more of an interesting person that he is. When he meets his friend from long ago, Pete, (played by Christopher Walken, in a good performance), Walken seems more magnetic than Huston as Welles. This Welles in a clumsy, and has to be pulled out of a few situations by his Chaufeuer, and I guess body guard played by Mexican actor Diego Luna. this Welles, as someone comments towards the end of the picture does not seem important at all. Only during a scene, where Huston portrays Welles doing his magic trick, does the character of Welles really shine through, and perhaps suggests, that Welles was just another guy in this world, but through magic was able to make him on screen and on stage more magnificent than the real person. If the filmmakers had this in mind, make everyone else perhaps more interesting, I think that this was a miscalculation, and perhaps not very flattering on the life of Orson Welles. Hustons portrayal of him, does not make Welles look either interesting or likable.

The film which starts out as a murder mystery, leads more to a conspiracy than just a possible murder itself. The idea is interesting, and asks some questions itself, which I won't say because it might give away to much. Though, you can see things in this film a mile away.

Alaska Lifeboat (1956)

A Wonderful Short

[9/10 · 10 May 2011]

I only caught this by accident on Turner Classic Movies. I had dvr'd the Mickey Spillane film "The Girl Hunters", and this came afterwards. I was surprised to discover that the film was made in 56, and not some perhaps 10 years earlier or even before. That it was made in 56 and not in color is also surprising, though the film does really show you the beauty of the area.

While some may feel the film is dated, it is rather contemporary as it discusses issues such as health care, and the responsibilities of a society and community.

It is a charming little film, and if you ever watch Turner Classic Movies, hopefully you will be able to come across.

The American (2010)

If Hemingway were alive he might have written this.

[7/10 · 22 February 2011]

George Clooney plays a man who kills people for a living. We really do not know who he kills people for. Does he work for the US government in some covert time action, or is he a hired killer for gangsters. We don't know.

Much of the film, we are not led privy to what is really happening. We actually know less than the Clooney character. What transpired in Sweden, what was going on. We don't know.

What we do see however, is a tortured man. A man who probably recently discovered something called love, which for any man who is a killer, we have learned from countless movies can be a problem.

As the hired killer, Clooney gives a great performance. He plays the film very coolly, but he can at times show fear, and he can be quite scary.

His relations with the many people are quite interesting. His boss or handler. They have know one another for a long time, but of course, in this film, the one he has known a long time appears to be the one he can least trust, and apparently does not trust. He meets others, while some of the film I feel in these relationships have a artificial tone, they are all interesting. For me, they represent for him his conscience, his need for love, and also in one case the kind of person he might have once been.

Their are references and somewhat homages to Sergio Leone and also Jean Pierre Melville. A scene in a train station immediately brought up to my mind the opening of Once Upon A Time In the West in a very small way. Also when he is putting the gun together, I could not help by think of Melvilles La Samourai, a film which has never impressed me (though I have like other Mellville films) However, I don't think that I have read anyone else say that this is a modern Hemingway story. For me looking at it I could not help but think of For Whom the Bells Toll, and Across the River into The Trees. The intermittent story, where some viewers may be bored remind me of something Hemingway would write. Did not Hemingway somewhat influence in Europe what an American is supposed to be? In the case of this movie, I suggest that the film has meaning of this American, who probably has lost his way, and perhaps the country that he is from, has also lost its way.

Their is beautiful photography in the film. The film almost makes you want to get a plane ticket and fly over to Italy, discover the area that this film was made, but it also has some wonderful compositions in the use of wide screen, the best of all coming a a cafe like bar/coffee shop, with Clooney at the far right, and a car outside on the far left. Thank goodness that letter boxing for TV has become an acceptable foremat.

Finally, see the ending of this film, see the similarity it has with another sequence in the film in more ways than one.

I can't say it is for everyone, my girl friend said she was sometimes bored. However, this is a film which I feel, if you are looking for a multi-layered story, you will find intriguing and an intelligence to boot. Good films today are still being made, and as for George Clooney, he can add THE American, to his impressive body of work.

Killers (2010)

no one else thought I would like this movie

[7/10 · 7 October 2010]

netflix did not think I would like this movie as much as the average rating it got, and neither did my girl friend, who enjoyed it and had heard about it and recommended it.

Please note that the netflix rating is much much higher than the rating here on IMDb, or by film critics in general. I for one did enjoy this film, and found it somewhat clever in what it did not say.

Now the film is somewhat predictable, and yes, I figured that Tom Sellicks character was somehow more than he seemed. When he tells the man at the reservation counter in France, "I don't speak French", he is not probably some ugly American, but someone who probably does know the language, but would not want to let on that he does. Tom Sellick by the way is pretty good in this film, only in the end were the moment of truth is revealed, does he probably not do as well.

I like Kuschner and Hegl together in this film, I felt that they did well together, and their courting scenes worked for me. I have only seen one other film with Kuschner, Lucky Number Slevin, and did not see him in his teenager movies, so I may not hold the prejudices that others may hold against him. I also feel that Kuschner is believable as a hired assassin after having seen him in Lucky Number Slevin.

The film of course starts out in beautiful Nice, France, and then we cut to three years later, and are in the dull suburbs of America. His wife Hegl, is trying to get him to go with her to Nice France. Little does she know that for him, it might bring back bad memories of killing, though he will be shortly in for a big surprise, as the death toll will be much greater than it was in Nice. Ironically, I thought that she might be the one who is supposed to kill him, and was with him all these years on a ruse. I think I was also benefited by the fact that I did not know it would be his neighbors, and all the other people he knew for all those years who would be the "killers". I think that when we know what is going to happen when we see a movie, many times that film is less enjoyable for us, because their are less surprises. Though I did pretty much guess who was going to be the first man to try to kill Kuschner, in the morning after his birthday the night before.

Some people here have criticized that a comedy had so much death in it, and like it has been asked what did they do with all the dead bodies, or why would Sellick allow Kuschner to marry his daughter. I would suggest first, that despite its sunny disposition, the film is really a very dark comedy, that asks questions about trust, and also is an indictment of suburban bliss. Even those people who are not out to kill Kuschner, are probably just as bad as anyone. Sellicks character wants to be close to Kuschner, certainly because you want to be close to your potential enemy and know what he is doing. It is also no wonder that his wife played by Cathlene Ohara is a heavy drinker, knowing what her husband did for a living, and this was the unfortunate way for her to cope. Fortunately the film does not try to preach about drinking, it allows you to make your own conclusions.

Originally suburbs like the one in this film, were looked upon as "white flight", a place to go to safer areas away from urban cities, and sadly at one time away from black people. We are reminded about this somewhat in the scene in the store, where Kuschner thinks a black worker (Played by Uscher) might be another of these killers, but is not. All the people who try to kill him, are these white middle class Americans, who are hoping to win the jackpot by killing Kuschner. Also we should note from as least what I remember, all the neighbors that Kuschner and Hegl have appear to be white. Yet they are all somewhat suspicious of one another, and really mostly don't like each other.

In the end, while supposedly everything has been resolved, nothing really has. Hegl calls for a trust circle, where people will say something about themselves that others don't know. However, nothing is revealed at all. Also the ending scene. Yes like husband like father in law. Kushner's last act in the film to make his son safe, really is an indictment of how unsafe Americans in this world feel they are. I'm reminded in the beginning of the movie, where Martin Mull in an interesting role as Kuschner's contact, exploits Kuschner in the trust that he wants him to have. Believing that he is killing people who are really bad guys, and a threat to America and that he is helping to keep good American people safe. Yes the Mull character apparently was not telling the truth, but we are really never given proof positive that this is true.

While this movie is no masterpiece, I think that the film is much deeper than people really know, and not just some silly fluff that many people believe it is. Those who have seen the film, and thought that it was meaningless, I think should see it again, and may realize their is more to this film than what they originally thought.

Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009)

three reviews in one

[8/10 · 30 September 2010]

This is a wonderful film. Yes, it is rated G, but it is a G with a lot of substance. If you have ever had a dog before, and know what it is to have love for a dog, it will certainly bring back memories, and thoughts, as it did for me. It is a bit of a tear jerker, I almost had tears, and my girl friend certainly did. Other people elsewhere have written how they were very moved. I could not understand how someone seeing this film would not be moved.

The film I believe did not have much of a release in the US, and appears to me now to be discovered on DVD in the US, appearing to have had more of a release in England and Japan, am I wrong? Had the film been widely seen, I believe that lot of people would probably want to be visiting the locations of the film in Road Island. The photography of the film is really first rate. Their are wonderful performances, Richard Gere is very believable as a dance and music teacher, and it is real nice to see Cary Togawa in a film (a very much underused talent I think, I remember seeing him in a film with Ali McGraw that took place in Thailand, and how his performance really made what would have been a dismal film more interesting). A must see film.

My second review is not about the film, but about some of the critical paid reviewers who have slammed this movie. They appear to be primarily from Great Britain, and I don't mean to insult the British, as many of the readers of these reviews in Britain have slammed the Critics who just have to hate this movie. I thought I was cynical, but at least I have some heart, what do some of these reviewers have. They just can't believe that Richard Gere could do this film, but for goodness sakes, he is an actor. See the film first, and then go read the reviews that you can find from some of these "so called movie experts", either hear at IMDb, or at Mrqe.com, simpily amazing.

Finally I do have a quibble with the film. The film for me somewhat gets hurt when you realize that this film is really not the true story. The real story, as the film in the end lets us know, took place in Japan from 1923 to 1934, not in the recent years in the US. Kaneto Shindo, the screenwriter and director of that version made in 1987 is credited in this film. We in the US, have not had access to that film. Perhaps the Gere produced film will be shown to be the superior film, perhaps not. I have never known a film to be made, which is based on something that did happen, but has been moved to a different locale. Some who have seen the original Japanese film have had some criticism, preferring the Japanese version. I believe it was the trailer for the film, that said it was based on a true story, but never have I known to have a film based on a true story to have its locale changed. Gere's produced film somewhat become disingenuous. While I have been moved by the film I have just seen, I am also bothered because of what I know. I wonder what they have thought in Japan.

Perhaps Gere's produced will spark interest in people to see the Shindo 87 film, and get a wider release outside of Japan. Had the film made in 87 been released in the US earlier, would the Gere's film have been made? I would suggest that it would not have been. I wonder how well this film, so much loved by people now, will be viewed in the future. I have difficulties in expressing my disappointment in what the producers of Gere's film did, perhaps anyone who reads my thoughts here will understand my feelings, and have some similar disappointment. I guess one could say, I have seen a wonderful film with Richard Gere, yet feel somewhat like I have been had.

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson: The Hound of the Baskervilles (1981)

Is it really so great?

[6/10 · 24 September 2010]

When I first heard about this Russian Sherlock Holmes stories, I was curious. Thanks to an up loader on Youtube, I think he is also the same person who writes the number one review here, I was able to watch it.

Perhaps due to issues not related to this film, issues of my life, I cannot say that I have been enthralled with this film. HOund of the Baskervilles of course is the most famous of all Sherlock Holmes stories. You have the 1939 film with the most famous of Holmes, Basil Rathbone, and then you have the 1959 version, color courtesy of Hammer, with Peter Cushing.

Having seen the Hammer version first, before the Rathbone version, The Hammer version has always been my favorite, even above the more critically acclaimed 1939 version. Also for me, Peter Cushing will always be Sherlock Holmes, Andre Morrell Dr. Watson, and Christopher Lee the young Baskerville from Canada. Even the actor in that version playing Doctor Mortimer was great as well. I would suspect that anyone having watched the 39 and 59 versions first, will have a tough time with any other Hound of the Baskerville movies.

Watching the Hound of The Baskervilles in the Russin version, while the acting by most is good, I have problems with the gentlemen playing Mortimer and the young Baskerville. Sorry that I cannot give names of the actors, I saw the actors film Slave of Love, which I did enjoy. I just can't stand both of their characters, though I kind of like it when this Dr. Mortimer holds his dog. Another big problem that others I think will have if they have seen the two more famous Baskerville movies, is that their is no suspense, if one has seen those movies, one already knows what is going on, and their is no mystery. Also what is with this Wild West style music, did Russians think that the Wild West extended to England in the 1880's as well? I have to admit, one scene of the carriage ride going to Baskerville Hall, reminded me of Sergio Corbucci's The Great Silence.

Perhaps a mistake is to watch this Russian Holmes version first, perhaps at the time, the producers of these shows realized that the Hound story is the most famous, and decided it would be better to show first what might not be as familiar, as this I believe was the 6th story. I might be better off to see those other stories first also, as they might be more interesting to me to do so as I may not know what is going to happen. Also being English Speaking, and having heard Holmes always speaking English with an English accent, something that other viewers from other non-English speaking countries who may have heard Rathbone and Cushing dubbed by other actors, might also be a difference.

Tetro (2009)

a star is born

[7/10 · 14 September 2010]

If Alden Errenreich does not become a future star, it will be a big surprise to me. Watch him in Tetro made me think of a young Leonardo De Caprio. Not that De Caprio is an aging actor, but he is not 21 years of age anymore. I do not know if I have his name spelled correctly, but it will be motion pictures loss if he is not a future star, that is what I see.

Instead of going into plot as many might do, I will just suggest that this is Coppola looking back at his life, and perhaps the lives of others. watching Klaus Maria Brandauer, I could not but help think of Marlon Brando, a genius of an actor, but not in life. The relationship of this maestro with his brother, also played by Brandauer, the brother reminded me of Alfredo from The two Godfather classics. Certainly, also watching this film, one cannot help but remember Coppola's Rumble Fish, which I do think was a little better than Tetro. His love for The Red Shoes and Tales of Hoffman is also evident, (I think Francis thinks Tales is the best film ever made).

A highlight of the film, and who knows, the more people see this film, the more people will want to go to Argentina during their winter time to go to Patagonia, breath taking black and white photography. Also the awards banquet is certainly a dig at such award shows, and he also may be giving a critical jibe to a famous American female talk show host who in the past, when she would tout a book would almost immediately become a best seller.

Tetro is not Coppolas best film by a long shot. It lags at times, sometimes I was a little bored, but it is interesting most of the time, and worth ones while to watch.

Mother (2009)

Korea as a country of mental illness

[7/10 · 28 August 2010]

I would have to say that while watching watching this film, I did not enjoy the film as much as others might have. It was on many occasions a depressing experience. However, when the film was over, and reflecting on it, while I can't say it is as good as the average of many of the reviews here, it is an intriguing film none the less. I was bothered by the scene where the mother goes and visits her lawyer while he is drinking, getting drunk and surrounded by women he has obviously payed for. The scene at the time seemed ridiculous to me. However in looking at the film as a whole, it presents a Korea which seems a country of mentally ill people.

the film in that sense, appears to be more than just a thriller, or Mystery. It seems to this writer, to be more a metaphor for where South Korea stands today. Was there meaning in a scene at a bus station, where American Soldiers appeared to be in the scene, out of focus in the background? Does this represent, not an anti American view point, but a view point of the uneasiness which South Korea exists next to its neighbors North Korea? In the end, the mentally handicapped young man, gets the last word, and appears to make the most intelligent statement when he questions his mother. While we have watched him throughout the whole movie, and looked upon him as a pathetic creature, we see that those around him, including his mother have some terrible issues that they are grappling with, and perhaps in need of some kind of help that he also needs, as almost everyone in this film is a little bit weird. Perhaps the last sequence of the film, is showing a South Korea in denial, and having difficulties in dealing with the mental anguish that might be inhabiting the society the creator of this film is trying to examine. Some of the extra's that go along with the DVD that I saw are also very interesting.

Der Fluch der gelben Schlange (1963)

Was this film critic stoned or what?

[2/10 · 9 August 2010]

I remember this film well, though I saw it a long time ago. I was interested in seeing the film because in Leonard Maltin's film book he said it was something like 3 out of 4 stars, maybe even 3.5.

Well after seeing the film, I wonder if Mr. Maltin actually sees the films that he gives recommendations for. He said it was atmospheric, and the beginning of the film does start out promisingly.

However, that is that. The film really plods boringly along. First you have a European actor playing a Chinese villain in one of the most horrible makeup jobs you could ever see. It is absolutely revolting.

They try to add humor to the film. Perhaps something was lost in the English translation. Watching it was not fun, and did not elicit any laughter. It was in fact embarrassing to look at.

Some of the other Edgar Wallace films are not to bad. But do yourself a favor, and make sure you skip this one. Shame on you Leonard Maltin.

The Book of Eli (2010)

Should Catholics Be Angry

[7/10 · 27 July 2010]

First off, I enjoyed Book Of Eli. I could not help think of the Mad Max films, which the film pays homage to, and Akira Kurrosawa' Yojimbo, especially when Eli (Denzel Washington) walks away from the camera after a battle, and he reminds me with his walk of Toshiro Mifune. Without giving anything away, even though I have warned of a spoiler, another Japanese character comes to mind. Throw in also Sergio Leone, with one of the characters whistling music from Once Upon a Time In America.

The character of Carnegie (Gary Oldman) is seen reading a book on Musollini when we are introduced to him. He is looking for a certain book. His leading sidekick, while a villain a little bit more sympathetic than he, reminds one a little of Mussolini with his bald head. the book that Carnegie is looking for we will learn is the Bible, with it, he feels he can rule more than just the small barren town that he holds sway over. "People will come from all over" he says, 'and do what I say". I could not help but think of Mussolini in Rome, and the Catholic Church in Vatican City, which if I am not correct is also in Rome.

Are the Hughes brothers suggesting that the Catholic Church hijacked Christianity as I have heard some other Christians say. Perhaps. But I also would suggest that they are also going against such people as Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell. that Eli, a black man is protecting this book against a white man, I think also maybe suggests that he is protecting the book so that Europeans don't hijack Christianity again, as the film may be subtly be suggesting. I however, will not say that the film is racist, or that the Hughes Brothers are showing prejudice.

That the film ends in San Francisco, which even though the world has gone through a dreadful Apocalypse, is still shown as beautiful, and maybe an Eden of sorts, is a further condemnation of the Religious Right by the brothers, as San Francisco is often seen by the right as far from God as one can be.

truth be told, as many have argued here, the film should have ended with Eli dictating to Malcom McDowell. the ending becomes a little pretentious, though perhaps, with the lead female character heading back to where she came from, and possibly going to kick some butt, the Hughes brothers are suggesting the oppression that women have suffered under religion as well.

Treasure in Malta (1963)

Was This The First Movie I Ever Saw

[10/10 · 20 July 2010]

Some time in 1963, in Berkeley California, my mother took me to the Berkeley Theater (which I don't believe exists anymore) to see a film that I remember was in Black and White. I was only 6 years old. International Movie Data Base says that it was in color, and a serial of 6 episodes. I remember such a film in black and white (and I believe at that time even if a film was in color, their might be prints of it sent to theaters in black and white. Also I saw it with my mother in one complete episode as I remember.

Some remembrances of the film were that the bad guys are chasing after some kids in an airplane hangar, and the kids push the steps away so the bad guys can't chase them very well. I also remember ((from my late mother) that the kids near the end parachuted over Malta.

From research that I did, from looking at International Movie Data Base and inquiries on the British Film Institute, I believe that this film was part of the Children's Film Fund. I recently sent an e-Mail inquiry to the British Film Institute, and they kindly responded and wrote, that the above was probably the film. Though I did not feel entirely it was a definite answer.

If anyone else happens to read this review, and from some of my descriptions can acknowledge this was the title, or know of another film, It would be greatly appreciated. Write in the Message Boards, which I have not used because of the information that is required, or put it in the review section. It would be greatly appreciated.