CMUltra Reviews

Fight for Survival (1977)

One of the weirdest kung fu movies I've seen.

[8/10 · 4 October 2008]

Polly Shang-Kwan is Chi Po Chun, a woman who is determined to study kungfu at Shaolin temple. She will not settle for any other teaching. I'm not sure why.

Two rookie monks who haven't started their kungfu training yet (still at the "carry water for one year" stage) note Chun at the temple steps praying to be admitted. They decide to trick her into carrying their water by telling her they'll train her.

Noticeable from the start is that the monks of Shaolin temple are weak in this movie. Ten students disguise themselves as their renowned masters and go to Shaolin temple. They speak to the head abbot, asking about the "Dao Mo Classics", a collection of ten secret magical kungfu manuscripts. The head abbot says they are in the temple. One of the "masters" says he heard it was stolen and demands to see it to satisfy their worry. The head abbot retrieves it, gets taken out with a single sucker punch and each of the fake masters abscond with one of the books.

While Chun is carrying water she meets an old hermit who lives in a cave outside the temple. Turns out he was the temple's lead martial artist and master of all ten disciplines of the Dao Mo Classic. Chun agrees to bring him water regularly.

The two rookie monks shenanigans are discovered and they are sentenced to carry water another 3 years. But the temple still won't admit Chun since she's a girl.

The old hermit, sitting on the temple roof for some reason, hops down and says he'll teach her. The temple's useless head abbot basically says, "Hey, that's great old master. By the way, since you're here, I should tell you some people came and stole the Dai Mo Classics right out from under me." Understandably upset about the temple's plunging reputation the old master says he will train Chun in the Dai Mo arts so she can retrieve and return the ten books to the temple.

They begin training and the movie, goofy to this point, gets downright absurd. One Dai Mo style is "hand". Beyond the usual cool hand movements it also teaches the user to stretch their arms like Mr. Fantastic. The first time Chun does this in her training, accompanied by a ridiculously cartoonish spring sound effect, you kind of scratch your head.

Then she does the same thing with her feet, having learned the "leg" discipline of Dai Mo. Other shots of her learning the disciplines include her either inhaling or exhaling a huge amount of smoke, (I couldn't tell which) and busting rocks over her head.

Everything's going groovy until she grows a mustache. Old Uncle laughs at her panic and explains that's the normal result of one of the disciplines, "Positive Kungfu". Studying the "Negative Kungfu" discipline will balance this out. Unfortunately the old master has forgotten Negative Kungfu.

Not wanting to listen to her scream about it he decides to fake his death. The temple coats him in gold and sticks him in a hall with other dead masters who were also embalmed.

Chun takes the two rookie monks as her assistants and goes out looking for the 10 books, particularly the Negative Kungfu book so she can reverse her budding masculinity.

This is a typical oddity of kungfu movies. For a girl to appear to be a man, she simply dresses like one. To our eyes she then simply looks like a hot girl dressed like a guy. But other characters in the movie completely buy that she's a guy. Even in their inn room when Chun is hanging out with only a linen wrap up top (leaving it hard to miss her feminine assets) men think she's a guy.

The middle part of the movie follows Chun battling the thieves, capturing them and retrieving the books. More weirdness is that evil folks twist Dai Mo disciplines. The Hand guy can't shrink his arms back, the Head guy walks around upside down, etc.

Chun returns the books and thieves to the temple. The thieves are interned for reform. The real masters now show up, indignant that their students have been incarcerated at Shaolin.

The head abbot and monks are sent running again and then, for no real reason to the story, four of the masters are shown in one-on-one contests with Shaolin animal style masters (dragon, tiger, snake and crane).

The movie jumps again to the masters running into an inner courtyard where they face Chun. She wallops a couple of them in combat and they decide they can't beat her that way. They must form the Shantung Battleline.

The movie, ridiculous up to this point, then impresses by increasing the absurdity. The ten masters, intended to be awe-inspiring, line up single file and start odd synchronized stepping that looks like the Loco-Motion.

Meanwhile, again for unknown reasons, the two rookie monks have retrieved the gold-embalmed body of old master, who is still alive, and bring him out to the courtyard. Inside a huge urn. Why they put him in the urn to bring him out, I have no idea.

The Shantung Battleline actually takes to the air, somehow achieving even more absurdity, and goes slowly towards Chun. Nothing about the Battleline has been fast. Chun could have disrupted it at any time but just stood there watching. As the Battleline goes airborne, so does the urn! The urn flies and collides with the Battleline. The urn shatters and old master lands on the ground laughing. The masters all fall about.

Running time is suddenly of great concern because, without further ado, old master declares the thieves reformed and orders them returned to the masters. He then coughs blood and dies. The last 60 seconds of the film are as abrupt as that.

Where the North Begins (1923)

Great Showcase

[8/10 · 28 April 2008]

I had long hoped to see a Rin Tin Tin silent and Grapevine Video made this one possible.

Where The North Begins is an excellent showcase for the great German Shepherd. Rin Tin Tin is by turn alert, submissive, fierce, quizzical, proud, afraid, etc. Rin Tin Tin, in short, displayed far more dramatic range than many humans who are currently being touted as great performers.

Physically he was just as impressive. I was absolutely astounded by the scene in which he takes a running start and makes an incredible leap to get into an attic window. I also loved that the film-makers included his failed attempts as well as this illustrated the tremendous effort the dog put into his tasks.

The story itself is pedestrian and completely predictable. I imagine it was even predictable in 1923. Gabrielle, Rin Tin Tin's human companion, is rather slow-witted and somewhat useless. But his role reminded me of the Steve Trevor character from the 1970's Wonder Woman series. Despite being a military officer, Trevor was constantly being outsmarted and captured by the enemy, a plot device enabling Wonder Woman to come to the rescue. Gabrielle served that purpose here as this is beyond a doubt Rin Tin Tin's movie.

A must-see movie for dog lovers and, even more so, for lovers of the majestic German Shepherd breed.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

The fun outweighs the negative!

[7/10 · 24 June 2007]

The good: 1. Hobgoblin-Spidey Fight - Fast frenetic action! 2. Excellent visualization of the Sandman forming. 3. Spidey saving Gwen Stacy. 4. The Eddie Brock plot device. 5. Stan Lee's "Nuff Said" Cameo! 6. Spidey-Sandman Fight - Fun! 7. BRUCE CAMPBELL AS THE SNOOTY MAITRE DE!!!! 8. The recurring supporting characters: Bldg super & daughter, Dr. Connors, Betty Brant 9. Harry Osborne as an evil rich manipulator. 10. Evil, disco Peter. 11. The first super-villain team-up! 12. Bryce Dallas Howard - Excellent portrayal of Gwen stacy.

The bad: 1. Kirsten Dunst - She's never convinced me that she's MJ Watson. 2. Parker not in costume for the Hobgoblin-Spidey fight. 3. Rewriting history - Sandman killing Uncle Ben. 4. Sandman's name changed to Marko. That is a different Spidey villain. 5. MJ as an annoying, clinging whiner. 6. Spidey unmasked FAR too much.

Rest in Peace, Cuervo Jones (2002 Video)

Wow. They really didn't have anything.

[3/10 · 12 June 2007]

They didn't seem to have any professional equipment. They used auto focus on their camera. I mean, honestly. Auto focus. It sounded like the mic was an omnidirectional mounted on the camera. The lighting was just a flood mounted at whatever angle the director thought would look good. For tracking, I *think* they mounted the camera on a skateboard for a couple of shots and pulled it along, complete with sudden jerks and jolts.

They didn't have actors. At least I hope these weren't actors. If they were rappers or gangsters or something in real life, and simply decided to be in this movie, then that is understandable. I think that's the case as IMDb lists this as the only movie for the vast majority of the participants. Exacerbating the poor quality sound, everyone mumbled. It caused you to lean forward, trying to catch what they were saying until you realized it didn't really matter.

They didn't have a writer. Or, specifically, someone to proofread and edit Tyrone McClain's rambling script. There were several attempted and aborted subplots. I still have no idea what the "Pencil Killer" subplot was supposed to add to the story.

They didn't have an editor. If you trimmed the useless fat out of this movie it would run at about 40 minutes. It would still be a horribly produced movie but at least it would be over quick. As it is, it runs just over 2 hours.

They did have two attractive actresses who provided the only positive attributes to this movie.

On the positive side this was obviously a labor of love for McClain since he wrote, produced and directed. It's tough to wear all those hats alone and get the movie completed but he did so. According to IMDb it's his first professional attempt so kudos to him. I hope he can do better in future outings.

Black Christmas (2006)

We needed one more "Alternate" in the Bonus Features

[4/10 · 16 April 2007]

I know by now that when you watch a teen slasher movie you cannot set high expectations. If I go into it expecting the usual formula (a deranged killer separates the hapless youngsters and kills them one-by-one in horrible ways) then it should be fine. Somehow, though, Black Christmas managed to disappoint me anyway.

I don't, for example, expect the acting to be stellar. Honestly, even if there are a few skilled actors hidden among the T&A the typical slasher script is not going to lend itself to them flexing any dramatic muscles. But, please. Oliver Hudson played the Kyle character so laughably wooden that it was really annoying. And, what happened to Lacy Chabert? She was touted at one time as being "one of the most promising young actresses" but we find her in this dismal mess as not only one of the generic victims, but also one that gets offed halfway through the movie. No, even by slasher standards, the performances are uniformly horrible.

Ah well, there's the gore right? That's the real reason to watch a slasher flick. Strike two for Black Christmas here. And I watched the "Unrated" version. I can only imagine how tame and unimaginative the theatrical "R" version must have been. The one big thing seemed to be the eyeball. Everyone had their eye plucked out, or poked out or even shoved through the back of their head. But, if you're going to make that your central gore theme, at least know the eye. They're actually pretty delicate organs, easily punctured and drained. In Black Christmas they were plucked out and waved about on ridiculously fake looking stalks or, as mentioned, shoved through heads, all the while remaining perfectly intact. The eyes held up so well that the killer used them as Christmas tree ornaments. There was a scene in Alias (Season 4 I think) where, because the writers understood the nature of the eye, Marshall's plucking of one caused far more discomfort without the viewer actually seeing any of the gore than all of Black Christmas' fake splatter combined.

Okay, well, how about the story? Your slasher flick needs a killer with a background so twisted that, in retribution, you can only imagine the terror he or she is going to visit on the victims. Strike three, and Black Christmas is out. Billy Lenz is never going to have to worry about being mentioned in the same breath as Vorhees, Myers or Krueger. He was a kid whose mother, with her boyfriend, murdered his father. She knew Billy witnessed them burying the father but we didn't see her do anything violent to him. She made him stay in the attic and even went up to have sex with him. Eh… that's twisted but not in the way to spawn a slasher-flick villain. Oh wait, Billy was also born with a rare liver disease that made his skin yellow. This didn't really matter as most of his scenes were far too darkly lit to notice. Okay but he did have a daughter/sister from his union with mom. She also turned into a slasher-flick villainess. *yawn* It's all really just weak. Including the movie's catchphrase, hissed repeatedly by both killers, "(Insert victim's name here) is in our family noooowwww!" Okay. Whatever.

After the credits finally rolled we hopped over to the bonus features as I always like to watch the theatrical trailer after I've seen a movie. I don't like to watch them beforehand, as trailers now tend to give away plot points. That wouldn't have been an issue here of course, but I enjoy seeing the trailers to see what key elements they decided would be the most useful in convincing folks to see the movie. I noticed in the bonus features that they included an "Alternate Ending". I didn't bother watching it but it made me wish they had included a link to an "Alternate Movie". A better one.

Normal Life (1996)

Illogical Love

[6/10 · 2 April 2007]

Normal Life is simply about the illogical love Chris (Luke Perry) has for Pam (Ashley Judd).

From the love-at-first-sight moment you know his attraction is there but, other than the physical appeal, you can't understand why. The first time he sees her, she's drunk and having a fight with what seems to be her boyfriend. She smashes a glass and cuts her hand. She's definitely attractive (Judd always is) so Chris overlooks her odd behavior and plays the knight in shining armor role as he tends to her cut.

The attraction is immediately so strong that he tracks her down at her workplace to see her again. He's a cop. When he sees her the second time she's sitting in her car outside her job smoking pot. He overlooks this as well and they go to an isolated area to lie in the grass and look at the stars. She's heavy into astronomy.

She initiates sex with him and, during the intercourse, he innocently says she's "crazy." She goes berserk, breaks off the copulation, runs screaming to her car and very nearly runs him over. He explains that he meant nothing bad by the comment and, once again, accepts her behavior.

This is the theme that continues. No matter what Pam does, Chris loves her. He's not blind. He recognizes Pam's attitudinal deficiencies and points them out to her. He struggles to help her change and become a better person. But when she doesn't change he must either leave her or change himself to fit her life. He does the latter.

Chris is not only a cop when the movie begins but also a straight arrow. He does not condone cutting corners, or police brutality. However he ignores his strict code of ethics when he finds Pam smoking pot the first time. That lets us know right away that, while he will try to change her, he is willing to sacrifice all of his personal standards to be with her. By the end of the movie he is a bank robber and a murderer.

Normal Life is a neat snapshot of what folks like Chris go through when they allow another person to become the end-all, be-all of their life. They begin to define their own life by the other person. They do not have the strength to let go. Some glimpses of Chris' parents are given but it is incomplete. We do not know if the family is truly dysfunctional or if there are difficulties exacerbated by his father's illness.

Perry was enjoyable as Chris. He played the character with a realistic edge. Chris was typically reserved and soft-spoken but Perry made it clear that there was high tension underneath.

Judd (one of my favorite actresses) was not so adept with Pam. In order to portray hysteria I think you have to go there, otherwise the acting is painfully obvious. That's what I saw here. In other scenes she did fine as she took Pam along the edge of a normal life. When Pam needed to turn on the charm, Judd excelled. The further Pam went the other direction, the more the performance suffered.

Sensation (1994)

A showcase for Kari Wuhrer

[6/10 · 2 April 2007]

Sensation is a showcase for the gorgeous Kari Wuhrer. Please don't try to tell me it's a thriller or it's about psychic abilities. The story exists simply to string along the scenes with Kari. Sensation is about psychic phenomena in the same way Debbie Does Dallas is about Dallas.

If Kari just had a few cheesecake moments here and there, then I would agree, "Okay, this is a poorly crafted thriller." Instead, Kari is displayed almost constantly in her full, sensational glory. We need a scene where Kari is painting? Sure, let's put her in coveralls with no shirt. Most artists paint like that. Any chance we have to show Kari in her apartment make sure she's wearing a thong. Kari and Eric Roberts' characters don't actually have sex? No problem, just show it as one of Kari's fantasies. Repeatedly.

As an aside here, during one of her fantasies, Eric Roberts looked screamingly ridiculous wearing face paint and doing some sort of ill-conceived bump and grind.

I adore Kari Wuhrer and this movie didn't disappoint. I have seen her in quite a few different roles and she demonstrated very little dramatic range in any of them. Nonetheless she possesses a screen presence that more technically skilled actresses would kill for. Wuhrer is clearly at ease in front of the cameras and almost always maintains an easy, natural sexiness. She has a voice that is simultaneously charming and sultry, and a very nice array of facial expressions. And, of course, a killer body.

If you're looking for a thriller with substance beyond your typical made-for-TV movie, don't bother here. If you enjoy beautiful women in general or Kari Wuhrer in particular, watch Sensation the first chance you get.

April Fool (1920)

Delightful outing from a forgotten star.

[7/10 · 2 April 2007]

Charlie Chaplin? No, Charley Chase. He was apparently pretty popular during the silent era, yet almost no one remembers him now.

I discovered him on TCM's Silent Sunday Nights and was happily engaged. Like Chaplin, Chase directed himself here. There was good use of camera angles and editing, setting a solid pace. It was pretty sophisticated for what I believe was an independent film-maker only five years after DW Griffith's pioneering techniques in The Birth Of A Nation (1915).

The story itself is funny. Not multi-layered clever like many of the classics from Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd but still with plenty of laugh-out-loud moments.

Check it out if you get a chance! It's a good look at a forgotten star.

Broken Oath (1977)

Wanna see why Angela Mao is the Queen of Kung Fu?

[8/10 · 1 April 2007]

Broken Oath showcases the charm, the beauty and the total arse-whuppin ability of Angela Mao. Moreover, this is kung fu cinema in its purest form. If vengeance is the central theme of Chinese martial arts films you don't get much better than Broken Oath.

Angela Mao plays Lotus Liu. Her father is killed by an infamous quartet of assassins. They spare her pregnant mother, who is sent to a prison island. While in prison she gives birth to Lotus.

One of the women inmates helping to deliver the child says, "It's a girl!" The mother simply states, "It doesn't matter. Boy or girl, this child will have vengeance. My daughter is born into hate."

A well-meaning inmate delivers the child to a Buddhist temple. She explains Lotus' background and asks the Sister Superior to raise the child as a peaceful citizen. The Sister Superior agrees and they dutifully raise Lotus and train her in the peaceful ways of Buddha.

It doesn't work. Even though she doesn't understand how or why, Lotus is driven by a hate-filled desire for violence. Sparring sessions with the other nuns are hardly fair as Lotus pummels them mercilessly. Classes on love and Buddha's commandments annoy her so she skips them to sneak into the nearby woods for further practice.

One day in the woods three ruffians happen upon her. One announces that they like to kill but are "tender" with girls. He further assures Lotus that they'll take turns with her. Lotus kills them. It's not a fight, the ruffians are hopelessly outmatched. Lotus is never in any real danger but she not only kills them, she takes a slow delight with the death of the third.

The nuns have no choice but to throw her out of the temple. Before expelling her, the Sister Superior tells Lotus where she may find the woman who delivered her to the temple. Lotus does so and discovers her past. Now she understands why she is fueled by violence and is happy that she has a target at which to aim her furious skill.

Though there has already been killing, it just gets better from this point. Lotus begins seeking the four assassins one by one. Taking on the masters singly or their gangs by the dozen she cuts a swathe of bloody destruction.

Angela Mao has ranked as my third favorite actress for most of my adult life (behind Audrey Hepburn and Judy Holliday). I love the kung fu genre in general and consider Mao to be in the elite echelon of performers. Mao not only possesses a fierce beauty (watch her expressions) but a physical skill equaled by very few other female martial arts actresses.

Her timing is superb which enabled the directors to place her in complex choreographed fights and her physical range is astounding. Clearly short of stature, even by the Chinese standards of the time, Mao can deliver kicks that come out of nowhere. And when she launches into a series of kicks, it's a thing of beauty.

My favorite movie of hers remains Sting of the Dragon Masters but Broken Oath is the best showcase for her skill, both in quantity and range. If you enjoy kung fu cinema, watch this! If you enjoy Angela Mao, watch this!

The Marrying Kind (1952)

Holliday is sublime! Ray is engaging! The story... hm!

[8/10 · 1 April 2007]

You gotta see this movie!

I'll talk at length about the one issue I had with this movie but you can just skip that if you like as I'll say right off the bat, I highly recommend The Marrying Kind!

For one, you get Judy Holliday! Really, that's enough to recommend anything. Second, you get her fourth outing with George Cukor (her second as the star). It also features a Garson Kanin screenplay. He didn't do too badly with Born Yesterday, did he? Plus you have a fun premiere role for Aldo Ray, a multi-faceted performance by Holliday and a superb slice-of-New-York-life in the early fifties.

Watch this movie!

Now… this movie was a bit odd in its flow. The ads and trailers clearly touted a romantic comedy. The re-teaming of Holliday and Cukor furthered this. And the first half of the movie was as light and airy as one could hope for, though I always wish for more Holliday screen time. Then, at the picnic, the movie takes a decidedly heavier turn towards drama from which it never returns. This had to catch audiences in 1952 off guard.

I never mind a tempo change in a movie if it's done well. Hitchcock switched gears nicely with Psycho in 1960 by having the "star" killed halfway through and taking us from a crime drama to psychological horror. Miike pulled an incredible swerve in 1999 with Audition where, again at the midway point, we were jolted from a light romance into a film of violent horror.

There are others but you quickly run out of well-crafted examples and are left with lots of movies where the change is simply not executed well. It leaves audiences puzzled as to what they're watching. Movie-making is an art and, over the past century, the craftsmen have learned to condition us as to how to react and what to expect. When they betray this it must be in a skilled fashion that plays to the context of the story (such as the two examples above) or the audience feels annoyance.

The death of their son (and the heartbreaking moments that followed) felt really out of place with everything that had preceded it. As a viewer I prepared myself for the mental shift. If this is no longer Born Yesterday comedy then are we now going into serious melodrama? I waited for the payoff but it never came. The Marrying Kind continued along the same plot line, limping now as its comedic legs had taken out at the knees.

The death of their son was played like similar incidents in The Crowd (1928) and Gone With The Wind (1939). Both of these movies, however, were beautifully crafted dramas. Optimism shining through the lens of heartache and tragedy. Romantic comedies (and all light comedies) show optimism in the face of everyday troubles, usually brought about by situational misunderstandings and misdirection. Not necessarily mundane but certainly not life-altering.

For me, this shift didn't work well. It certainly doesn't alter my love for Holliday as my favorite all-time actress (along with Audrey Hepburn) nor my consideration of Cukor as one of my all-time favorite directors.

For her part Holliday remained sublime, delivering pitch-perfect comedy in the first half and gut-wrenching drama in the second. Though she was really only utilized in her short career as a comedienne (and there were none better to this viewer) she clearly could have been a superb dramatic actress.

Columbia made quite a deal out of "introducing Aldo Ray." While he didn't become the major star they were clearly hoping for he was nonetheless likable and engaging here. His masculine appeal and gruff voice was an interesting alternative to Holliday's usual romantic interests. Compare Ray's blue-collar Chet to the reserved and cultured Paul Verral of William Holden (Born Yesterday) or Richard Conte's polite and introverted Nick Rocco (Full of Life). Or, for Holliday's best on-screen chemistry see Jack Lemmon's quirky and neurotic beaus (It Should Happen To You and Phffft!).

So sit back, expect a sea-change in mood and enjoy the incomparable Judy Holliday as she once again works her screen magic. We love you Judy. We miss you.

Carolina Moon (2007 TV Movie)

I guess the book was pretty good.

[4/10 · 19 February 2007]

I read a lot of high hopes from readers of the book that this would be a faithful adaptation of Nora Roberts' story. Not having read the book, I don't know if this adaptation was faithful but I do know it wasn't good. Actually, the screenplay was the best part of the movie so kudos to Nora Roberts.

I planned ahead and watched Carolina Moon because of Claire Forlani. I've never been sure if she's a good actress. She's been decent in some movies, average in others and really bad in this one. But, Forlani wasn't alone. The performances were all over the place. Oliver Hudson was wooden and boring. Josie Davis was hammy. Then, amidst all this B-rate acting, there's Jacqueline Bisset! She didn't have a lot to do other than portray bitterness but, even sleepwalking through that, she was miles ahead of the others.

Still, Forlani remains one of the most breathtaking women in movies and I was not disappointed in that capacity here. I believe Forlani can be more than eye-candy but, until she turns in a good performance in a good movie, she continues to excel at that. And, I'll continue to faithfully watch everything she participates in. Fandom is fun that way.

This movie though, Carolina Moon, was pretty bad. In addition to the bad acting (fake Southern accents are really distracting) the direction was pedestrian. It wasn't horrible. It was just the boring made-for-TV caliber you're used to seeing on Lifetime.

If you're a fan of any of the stars you can probably enjoy Carolina Moon for that reason, as I did. If you're a fan of the book you might enjoy seeing the story on the screen, albeit in a lackluster form. Otherwise, this movie is unremarkable.

Crank (2006)

He has one hour to live. I'd like two hours of my life back.

[4/10 · 18 February 2007]

What a disappointment. I really look forward to Jason Statham movies as he has all the tools to be a major action star. He is fit, projects a great screen charisma and knows enough martial arts to allow for nicely choreographed fight scenes. But his movies continue to be weak. Well, his previous movies seemed weak at the time but, compared to this stinker, they rocked.

He may have jumped at this movie based on the script. I can imagine getting excited just reading the screenplay. The premise is not original by any means, but still nifty: he wakes up with a video love note from enemy gangsters letting him know that he has one hour to live due to a designer poison in his system. A nice touch was the video showing them administering the drug while he was asleep. There is apparently no cure but the death can be delayed by keeping his adrenaline up. The script then lends itself to what could have been nicely over-the-top moments involving him starting fights he cannot hope to win, having sex with his girlfriend in front of a cheering crowd of Chinatown onlookers, mutilating himself with a waffle iron, starting police chases and generally embarking on what the news station in the movie called a city-wide spree of destruction.

All of these scenes with so much potential were wasted in the unimaginative hands of director Mark Neveldine. He goes through every clichéd tool available: fast edits, fast pans, odd tilts, slow-mo, etc., all supported by a fast, generic soundtrack. Okay, granted, pretty much all action movies use these tools but, in the good ones, the directors use them imaginatively and well. Neveldine did neither. If the Cardinal Sin of any movie is to boring, how much worse is it for an action movie to suffer that? The movie is barely workable. I don't believe it even lends itself to the enjoyment of picking it apart with friends. Statham does maintain his favorable screen presence, but very little else. Amy Smart is not terribly attractive here. That's got to be the movie as she looks charming in other venues (see: The Best Man and Just Friends, though she was out-shined by Anna Faris in the latter). Efren Ramirez is always enjoyable, including his violently brief role here. For much better examples of his talent see Napolean Dynamite and Employee of the Month.

I'd really recommend a pass on this movie.

Girls on Probation (1938)

Talkative Tough Love Story

[5/10 · 7 August 2006]

Poor Connie Heath (Jane Bryan) can't catch a break. Her father is stern and unforgiving. He doesn't trust her going out or any of her friends. It turns out his mistrust in one friend, Hilda Engstrom, is well founded.

Hilda talks Connie into lying to her father and going to a dance he has forbidden. She "loans" Connie a dress she has stolen from the cleaners where they work. Connie gets into trouble but manages to avoid jail time. Her father does boot her out of the house, however.

Connie goes to the city and runs into Hilda again. Hilda is sitting in a idling car… outside a bank. Connie decides this is the time to give Hilda a piece of her mind and hops in the car to do so! About this time, Hilda's partner comes running out of the bank, guns blazing. Rather than hopping out of the car, Connie sits there with a puzzled look. She's apparently bewildered by all this. During the high speed police chase Connie gathers her wits and takes the gun. The robbers pull over and the cops find Connie holding the gun.

Afraid of her father finding out, Connie decides it's better to go to prison than explain the events. A case worker takes an interest and investigates on her own. She convinces Connie to tell the truth and gets her out on probation.

Working for and falling in love with DA Dillon (sounds groovy) Connie thinks her life is back on track. But Hilda returns to try and stir things up again, still talking. Somehow, amid all the nonstop talking of their own, Connie had failed to mention to Dillon that she was fresh out of jail and on probation for the bank robbery.

Sound movies had just turned a decade old but the novelty had clearly not worn off. Everything remained dialogue-driven. These people talk and talk… and then talk. No scene is set through visuals, no emotions are described through facial expression. Each and every element is articulated through exposition.

The cast is fun and never shuts up. Jane Bryan is cheery despite her character's many setbacks. And she talks about all of it. Sheila Bromley is equally verbose as the diabolical Hilda. Ronald Reagan orates unceasingly as the love interest, Dillon.

This type of rapid-fire dialog was a staple of movies during this era and "Girls on Probation" is a jewel of an example. Highly recommended for a look at a typical by-the-numbers production of the 30s.

Bus Stop (1982 TV Movie)

Solid film capture of a stage play

[5/10 · 6 August 2006]

I sat down to watch this, not knowing what it was about. I was surprised to find it is a filmed stage play. I typically don't enjoy these as there's always a bit of disconnect. My mind keeps wanting to go into movie mode but it's clearly a "live" play on the screen.

Still, it's not at all badly done. Plus it's always fun to watch actors such as Margot Kidder and Claude Akins, particularly in this setting.

The camera work is solid enough so that you get a live audience feel. It even contains shots of the audience itself, including the cast bowing at the end.

While "Bus Stop" is nothing spectacular it is an enjoyable two hours. Recommended if you happen to catch it on.

Comet Over Broadway (1938)

Too many "Huh??" moments

[3/10 · 6 August 2006]

Any time a movie is so myopic in its desire to present a particular ending or viewpoint that it simply doesn't bother with an actual story, it's annoying. Those are the types of movies where the ending or viewpoint is conceived first, and the story simply tacked on. For this reason we often talk of the story "jumping through hoops" as it twists about, trying in vain to progress to the preordained ending in a logical fashion.

The story in "Comet Over Broadway" doesn't just jump through hoops, it's a three ring circus. It's so ludicrous, so ill-conceived, so disingenuous that, if you are prone to speaking aloud to the screen, you will be carrying on quite a rant before it's through.

The central theme of this screenplay cesspool is that of a woman choosing between family and profession. Since it's all so horribly muddled it will end up offensive to people of either opinion. So, in the end there's no point to the story, the theme becomes irrelevant and, as is often the case with poor screenplays, the acting doesn't save a thing.

Little Women (1949)

Allyson and Taylor and Leigh, oh my!

[7/10 · 23 July 2006]

What a fantastic cast! Everyone has their favorite of the numerous film versions of Louisa May Alcott's classic and this is mine.

From LeRoy's breezy direction to the beautifully subdued Technicolor this movie resonates. The true draw, however, is the cast. Two of the classic screen beauties, Janet Leigh and Elizabeth Taylor juxtapose nicely opposite the ultimate girl-next-door June Allyson and television legend Margaret O'Brien. All of them are very young here and incredibly charming.

Allyson leads as Jo March. Her interpretation is as sensible, no-nonsense, tomboyish and, ultimately, womanly as you can hope. Allyson pulls it off without the coolness Katharine Hepburn displayed in the 1933 version. Her Jo is very accessible and entirely sympathetic. That is not to say I do not enjoy Hepburn's Jo as well. It was a near flawless portrayal and technically superior to Allyson's. I did, however, prefer the warmer Allyson version.

Janet Leigh (one of my favorite starlets) doesn't have a lot to do with her character as, in the movie, Meg mainly functions as a catalyst for and example of Jo's feelings regarding love and marriage. Still, Leigh is perfectly poised and has great chemistry with the other little women.

Elizabeth Taylor makes a bit more out of her juicier role of the seemingly superficial and selfish Amy. Taylor is delightful and brings a lot of laughs as she fusses over food, glamour and sensibilities, all the while mispronouncing the five dollar words she loves to work into her conversations.

O'Brien plays the role of Beth with all the delicate vulnerability needed for the character. Lawford is charismatic as Laurie and Watson is appropriately annoying as the meddling Aunt March.

I highly recommend this (and the 1933 version) for a warm and touching adaptation of the book.

Lady in the Water (2006)

It's all in the ending.

[6/10 · 22 July 2006]

The ending is the crucial part of any movie. And, since M. Night Shyamalan has established the ending as the high point of his films, I was particularly watching the final moments here. Disappointingly, Shyamalan delivers a few very weak, very easy to spot "twists" tied up in a Hollywood Happy Ending™.

I've nothing against happy endings but, with Shyamalan, I expect the ending, whatever type it may be, to have quite a punch. The rest of the movie has the quality we've come to expect from Shyamalan. Tight direction, angles and shots that not only look good but also become part of the storytelling, and a layered script all add up to a fun and very interesting ride. Unfortunately the ride runs out of gas rather than coming to a final destination.

Shyamalan takes a good stab at the fantasy genre here and doesn't waste any time establishing belief amongst the characters. They all quickly accept and then begin to act upon the proposition that Story is a real life fairy-tale creature, come to benefit them and mankind as a whole. Their belief seems too abrupt but it's clear that Shyamalan wanted to dive right into the story. I would have liked just a little more cynicism from the humans though. If he had set the story in the past their immediate acceptance may have been more plausible. But in current day Philadelphia? I just don't see that many folks accepting a fantasy being at face value.

The writing is a good bit more humorous than his past scripts. There are a good many chuckles and even a few laugh out loud moments. Giamatti is in a role tailor made for him and he carries it with no problems. Howard shows a suitable sense of wonder and innocence as Story. The rest of the cast, a fairly large group of characters, are solid as well. Shyamalan writes himself into his largest role to date and does quite well.

Overall I can't say it's a bad movie. The Shyamalan quality alone puts this above most of the competition. However, he has set himself a pretty high standard with his earlier films and this one falls short.

Date Movie (2006)

They should have fired these two writers as well.

[3/10 · 17 July 2006]

I have enjoyed the Scary Movie parodies to varying extents, finding in each installment at least a few laugh out loud moments. Date Movie provided two… maybe three light chuckles. That was it.

The best they could come up with for a clever tag line in the poster art was "From 2 of the 6 writers of Scary Movie." Uh… okay. Well, why'd you keep these two? It was honestly like they didn't even try. I could write a better parody than this and, since I'm not a good enough writer to be hired by a studio, I just have to assume that the writers are capable of better.

There was nothing original. They were drawing such a creative blank that they spent a good five minutes having the camera watch a hand-puppet cat squirm around on a toilet seat. They interspersed fart sounds and quick shots of facial expressions from the stars. Oh yeah, that made it better.

A good parody will take the existing content it is lampooning, and present it in a humorous way by providing ironic twists. Here they simply made sets, costumes and situations similar enough for you to recognize the source material and then either laid vulgarities or toilet humor on top of it. There's no thought in that. Just pitiful.

Comedy of this nature almost always demands a straight man. In silly parodies, the straight man is often the least absurd of the various characters. In the Scary Movie series, star Anna Faris carried this role well. She's not up to a Leslie Nielsen standard yet, but she's getting better with each installment. Her delivery, her deadpan, her timing are all very nice. In Date Movie, Alyson Hannigan cannot do this at all. She used a total of two facial expressions to convey her character's reaction to each situation. It just became annoying.

I think Hannigan has proved herself to be a charming actress, not without talent. So I'll assume that the problem here was the two writers. Hopefully they'll now go join the other four.

The Marriage-Go-Round (1961)

Definitely a Newmar vehicle.

[4/10 · 17 July 2006]

It may not be enough to say that Julie Newmar is statuesque. Further hyperbole is probably needed, perhaps along the lines of "she defines statuesque" or "her picture is in the dictionary under statuesque." She is such a striking figure that she can basically carry a scene simply by walking around or striking a pose. That's good, because that's pretty much all that happened in this film.

The story could have been vaguely insulting but instead was just boring. I won't detail it as the one-line plot outline is more than sufficient. No layered meanings, no depth, not much of anything. The performers, saddled with such a story, seemed like they gave it a real try where most may have just phoned it in. That's a plus.

Recommended for Newmar fans only.

The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)

Citizen Shields

[6/10 · 14 July 2006]

This is the way ensemble casts and biopics should work. Similar to "Citizen Kane" in style (though not quite at that level in quality), "The Bad And The Beautiful" presents us with the character of Jonathan Shields (Douglas) as seen through the eyes of four people who worked with him.

I'm not sure who the Shields character was based upon. I believe his character was actually an amalgamation of several producers and directors. You certainly get to see a lot of the traits producers have become infamous for.

However, these traits are all presented through the eyes of others and, as such, we are never sure what truly made Shields tick. We can only guess by putting together the different viewpoints and that is pretty much true to life.

The cast did a great job with director Amiel (Sullivan) starting things off. The performances were not terribly deep or wrenching, but the story didn't really call for it. Lana Turner was very good as the starlet living in her father's shadow, but I'm not sure why she received top billing. Gloria Grahame did win an Oscar for her supporting role, which was surprising. The role was barely significant enough to be "supporting". She was, as always, very charming in it though.

Overall, an excellent slice-of-Hollywood-life disguised as a biopic. It will make for a fun viewing with characterizations you can think about for weeks to come.

Full of Life (1956)

A warmth all its own.

[8/10 · 12 July 2006]

"Full of Life" flows nice and smooth, like warm molasses on pancakes. John Fante adapted the screenplay from his own novel and the result is chicken soup for the soul. That's probably enough food allegories, though food plays a nice role in the movie.

Star Judy Holliday plays Emily Rocco, a secular girl married into a Catholic Italian family. They live happily with the husband Nick (played by Richard Conte) having drifted from the faith into a more worldly life as well. As the film opens, Emily is pregnant with their first child. They are having the child late, we learn, by choice.

Their rather sterile existence starts to transform with the pregnancy as Emily goes through emotional changes. An intellectual woman, Emily is confused by the new emotions and Nick bears the brunt of her frustration. It is all delivered with gentle humor and genuine affection.

Emily and Nick need to adjust their attitudes from that of young individuals to that of family. The obvious solution is to involve Nick's family, a large traditional Italian unit, but Nick has become estranged. The impetus comes in the form of termites.

The kitchen floor of their stucco home is infested and gives way under Emily in a nicely funny scene, leaving her crying up to her chest in a hole in the floor. Repair estimates are too expensive for them (Nick is a writer between books) and Emily repeatedly suggests that Nick contact his father, Papa Vittorio. Papa, played delightfully by Salvatore Baccaloni, is a stone mason but surely able to do some carpentry work as well.

Papa has noticed how his children have become estranged, seduced by life in the US, and is not very happy about it. After some initial pride-driven stubbornness between Papa and Nick, the wheels are in motion for the family to be reunited.

This is the point of the film, how worldly possessions, achievements and accomplishments cannot replace the family. Those things are important elements of life but only from the perspective of how they emphasize the strength and value of the family. Surprisingly, or perhaps appropriately, Emily with her secular upbringing recognizes and accepts this more quickly than Nick and she is the link that draws all parties together.

A departure from the romantic comedies Holliday was known for, "Full of Life" provides her with an opportunity to aim her tremendous talent at a much more subtle style of humor. Holliday excels here as she always did, providing a performance that captures all the nuances of a multifaceted character. Judy's strength as a technical actress was to deliver a pure illustration of each character. She could take a one dimensional character and make her powerful. She could take an overly complex character and make her familiar and accessible.

Judy Holliday's Emily Rocco will resonate with the viewer long after the movie ends.

One cannot discuss Holliday's genius without lamenting her early demise. Seven features seems shamefully few for such a bright star, but at least we have those.

Of her seven starring roles, I cannot say Emily Rocco is her best, but it is top notch and it is unique. Highly recommended!

Mildred Pierce (1945)

Excellent characters, excellent story

[7/10 · 12 July 2006]

Excellent, riveting story. I watched it on DVD (not having been alive to see the theatrical run) and did not pause once for refreshments or breaks. If a movie can captivate you start to finish, immersing you to the extent that you do not want to break the spell, then it is excellent film-making.

I believe it is misclassified. Mildred Pierce did not really strike me as Film Noir. That may be because I went into it expecting Film Noir and, while some of the genre elements are present, it really never stayed in that territory. Mildred Pierce is very much a simple character study, almost a biopic. It starts and ends addressing a murder, and Mildred's flashbacks occur while she's at the police station, but that's pretty much the extent of the Film Noir influence.

Instead the movie focuses on who Mildred is and how she became that way. At the time of the murder she is an accomplished and successful businesswoman. She did not start out that way and the movie traces her life path at a steady and interesting pace.

Joan Crawford is… well, she's Joan Crawford in the title role. The only flaw I can find in the movie is that Joan has difficulty expressing vulnerability. She looks so imperious and so strong that it is sometimes tricky to accept that her character is so downtrodden. One cannot completely excuse Joan for this either as, even when Mildred is a single mom of two daughters, desperately broke, she still wears clothes that look far above her particular station. This was always a signature quirk of Crawford's where she was loathe to appear in public looking anything less than the glamorous movie star and, likewise, did not want to appear unattractive in her movies. Compare this to Bette Davis or more recently Charlize Theron (in "Monster"), two actresses who happily "uglied" themselves for certain roles.

That is a rather negative tangent though and I should state that this aspect of Joan's presentation of Mildred was, to me, a minor flaw. Overall she was solid throughout, demonstrating quiet dignity when faced with challenges, unwanted advances and even heartbreak. Her two moments of rage were presented in an authentic contrast. So, Crawford delighted this viewer and I cannot imagine anyone else in the role.

The supporting cast was excellent as well. Jack Carson (one of my favorite character actors) shined as the wolfish friend who really treated her better than either husband. Zachary Scott was so authentic as the lazy, formerly rich hanger-on both in acting and appearance that he was almost a caricature. Eve Arden's role was smaller but it contained plenty of her famous sarcastic wit. Bruce Bennett was the weak link in the cast but, to his defense, his character of Bert didn't really have much to do other than be a catalyst for Mildred's success in the early part, and then a mildly sympathetic shoulder in the later.

The best performance possibly goes to Ann Blyth as the hateful daughter Veda. Blyth played Veda as porcelain, untouchable and wholly uncompassionate. Veda barely bothered to hide her contempt from her love-blind mother and feigned sadness or remorse when the situation demanded it. She was unapologetic to the end. A fascinating portrayal.

Highly recommended if you have an opportunity to see it. Like a novel, the movie is best viewed in an otherwise quiet, dark environment so that it can be afforded full focus.

Ultraviolet (2006)

A live-action comic, or comically live action?

[6/10 · 9 July 2006]

I watched this back to back with Aeon Flux. From the start I liked the lighter, faster style of Ultraviolet. Both movies begin with the respective heroines offering solemn narratives but the Ultraviolet opening credits were a blast with comic book cover parodies.

It set the tone for an over-the-top action movie with bits of breezy humor. Unfortunately, there weren't enough of those bits. When UV played it tongue-in-cheek the action flowed and the movie was fun. Then, inexplicably, the tone would suddenly become serious.

Why?? No one is going to take this movie seriously, particularly after the opening action sequences. No one is going to buy into the storyline any deeper than is necessary to understand why the folks are fighting. So, why the compulsion to suddenly shift gears and try to add depth and characterization when you've provided no basis for either? If they had just stayed with the fun, outrageous attitude it would have been a much more satisfying movie.

The good points: During the lighter sequences, the movie was a blast. Milla is limber and acrobatic enough to cut some nice action sequences. She's far superior in this respect to Charlize Theron (in Aeon Flux). And the tech was fun as well, with compacted dimensions holding lots and lots and lots of guns.

The script was the main offender here. There were several inconsistencies in the story, and several plot holes that jarred you out of the movie experience. That's always annoying.

The CGI sets and buildings were nicely designed but the CGI action was pretty choppy at times. Still, that was acceptable as long as the movie maintained its comic book style.

Æon Flux (2005)

At least I know how to pronounce the name now.

[5/10 · 9 July 2006]

I think Hollywood has run out of their one idea on how to make an action movie with a female lead. It became an unwritten rule somewhere along the line that the heroine must scowl, sulk and be generally unhappy throughout the film. Elektra was really the worst with this. Jennifer Garner (who I really like otherwise) was just laughable with her constant dour, angry, "I'm really, really serious" expression. Charlize isn't quite that bad in Aeon Flux but she comes close.

I'm thinking that Theron is not the problem here. She's a damn good actress and could have easily served up a serious-yet-witty heroine. No, I'm guessing the director or the script (or both) demanded it.

The fight choreography didn't exist. Kusama used the Hollywood favorite of editing in lieu of actual martial choreography. So, you end up with the same old choppy fight scenes. That's boring.

The shoot-outs were fun though. I particularly enjoyed the one near the end with the Monicans on the towers.

Some pros: The movie did have it's fun moments. The story serviced the pacing fairly well. Theron also cut a nice figure in her Aeon outfit.

For a fun comparison watch Aeon Flux, Ultraviolet, Bloodrayne and Underworld together.

Death to the Supermodels (2005 Video)

It's just silly.

[5/10 · 8 July 2006]

Death to the Supermodels is an inexpensive production with a sparse script and a questionable plot. And... a nice breezy sense of humor, performers who obviously had a great time making the movie and a generous portion of eye candy.

Light-hearted (How could it possibly take itself seriously?) and fast paced, DttS wades around in the satire pool with opportunities to lampoon models, lesbians, beauty, African-American butts, white butts, European hygiene... and on and on. The movie really just pokes fun at everything that happens to be in front of the camera. It never slows down enough to apply the requisite thought to create true satire. So, it ends up being silly. The only thoughts it will provoke are along the lines of "What's the deal with the spider monkeys?"

That's really the only way to approach this movie. It's not serious and contains no hidden meanings or symbolism. What you see is what you get. For example:

An Asian she-male posing as a female super model who happens to be a descendant of Confucious and a martial arts expert who had her breasts enlarged and now suffers great guilt over what she has done to her "little won-tons" and goes by the name "Hoo Chee" while his/her real name is the much more conceivable "Hung So Lo" meets her death in all-out martial combat with a large lesbian dressed like a ninja.

Now, come on. There's no way to find symbolism in that many layers of goofiness.

Sit back, relax and laugh. That's all this movie is about.