DoctorMeticulous Reviews

Unsub (1989)

Bad Timing for a Decent Show

[6/10 · 7 August 2021]

This show from 1989 was ahead of its time. It follows the investigations of the Behavioral Crimes Unit of the Justice Department and their encounters with disturbed criminals. It is the forerunner to programs like Criminal Minds (especially), Millennium, Profiler, etc.

The show is notable for its cast, featuring TV stalwarts David Soul, Kent McCord, and Richard Kind; character actor M. Emmett Walsh, and Jennifer Hetrick (who played a popular recurring character on Star Trek: The Next Generation a few years later). The stories are a little uneven. The cast is capable in those cases where they are given something interesting to play.

The general vibe is very much in key with Michael Mann's crime film "Manhunter," and the show's least successful character is a poor imitation of that film's protagonist. The show's cancellation after only eight episodes seems like a sad event in retrospect, considering the number of forensic procedurals that have crowded the airwaves in the last twenty years. Sometimes success is all about the timing. Unsub might have developed into something really good if it had been given some support from its network.

Black Jack (1972)

A well-intended misfire

[4/10 · 31 March 2021]

"Wild in the Sky" (a.k.a. "Black Jack") is a film that really, really wants to be "Dr. Strangelove" or "Catch-22," but doesn't quite get there. The plot: Three anti-war activists escape police custody, only to find themselves stowaways on a B52 bomber with a nuclear device, which they proceed to hijack. The plot is almost beside the point, except as a vehicle for a series of character-driven comic moments that are diverting enough, but never add up to much.

The film is most noteworthy for comic performances from a slew of faces familiar from 1970s television: Georg Stanford Brown (The Rookies), Larry Hovis ("Hogan's Heroes"), Tim O'Connor ("Buck Rogers"), Bernie Kopell ("Love Boat"), Dick Gautier ("When Things Were Rotten") and Jack Riley ("The Bob Newhart Show"). Barbara Bosson ("Hill Street Blues") is credited, but I didn't spot her. Keenan Wynn is on hand for his usual fuss and bluster. Robert Lansing gives the film's best performance as the spit-and-polish bomber pilot; it is a better than average Charlton Heston impersonation.

Perhaps the film was funnier in its original cultural context, with its send-up of corrupt, perverted, uptight, fundamentally dishonest politicians and military personnel, and its implicit anti-war message. But it offers more silliness than satire, so its bark is without any bite--which is what keeps it from being truly memorable.

Strange (2002–2003)

What might have been

[8/10 · 22 November 2020]

I didn't see this at all when it first aired, as I live in the USA. For my countrymen, the obvious comparison is to The X-Files, as a believer and a skeptic (at first, anyway) investigate supernatural mysteries. Instead of UFOs, though, the central bugaboo in this series is demons.

Some of the story elements are familiar to longtime genre viewers. The title character, John Strange (as far as we know, no relation to Adam Strange of The Strange Report) is a defrocked priest, which brings to mind the unsold TV pilot "The Possessed" from Jerry Thorpe (producer of Kung Fu) with James Farentino. The frequent setting of the hospital is reminiscent of the contemporaneous American series The Others, about a group of spiritualists and psychic investigators.

But this series, Strange, is better-written than the first season of the X-Files was. The mysteries are more complex, the scares a little chillier, the backstory exposition revealed at a more leisurely pace. Strange's distaff partner, Jude Atkins, is a nurse and a single mom, and there is a refreshingly honest feminist & working class subtext often absent from American television. Ian Richardson is a delicious treat in his role as Strange's foil. Sadly, there are only a handful of episodes, so the considerable potential of this series remains mostly untapped. Which is sad, as I would rather have watched this than Supernatural.

Ghost Keeper (1981)

The Terror of Tedium

[3/10 · 20 November 2020]

Watching this, one has the impression that the filmmakers saw The Shining, and thought to themselves, "Hey, we've got a lodge! Let's make a horror film!"

The plot: Three obnoxious yuppies on snowmobiles wait out a snowstorm in a spooky lodge with a cranky and demented caretaker. The initial set-up is promising, as there is an incipient love triangle dynamic among the characters. But that potential is wasted fast, as one of three is killed early in the film. That leaves no suspense as to who the "final girl" of the film is. The film purports to be about the Windigo myth, and it simply isn't. There is virtually no supernatural element to this film, and the supposed "monster" is only in a handful of scenes and never escapes the room in which he is locked, so he is hardly threatening.

The performances: Again, things go from mediocre to worse. The male lead is suitably despicable, but fails to sell the mental collapse of his character in Act III. The female lead is pretty good at subtext, but otherwise wooden when delivering dialogue. The liveliest character is the one who's killed-off first. The old lady gives an engaging performance that goes way over the top at the film's climax (if it can be said to have one).

The look: The cinematography of this film is competent and occasionally better than that, and the deserted lodge is filmed in an atmospheric manner. But how many empty hallways and how much snow does anyone need to see? Stanley Kubrick and Stephen King these guys are not. Nice try, but sorry.

If you want to see a better film about the Windigo, see "Ravenous." If you want to see a better film about an atmospheric, bleak locale, see "The Legend of Hell House" instead (Paul Zaza's musical score is reminiscent of that film's, too). If you want to see a better film with a low budget, see "Phantasm." This film is not the worst thing ever committed to celluloid, but it does not return much on your investment of time in it.

The Black Hole (2006 TV Movie)

A cure for insomnia

[3/10 · 15 October 2020]

I was hoping for a nostalgic romp with the Disney film of the same name, which I regard as a bad film, but which at least would be nostalgic. This 2006 sci-fi film is much more cheaply made and has a less impressive cast.

The main problem with this production is a lackluster script with a linear plot and one-dimensional characters. Judd Nelson is cast in the Charlie Sheen role as a divorced physicist with bad hair (honestly, he seems like a relative of Sheen's character in the much better sci-fi film, The Arrival). And that's as much character development as we get for him. Kristy Swanson's role is completely thankless; her back story with Nelson's character is under-developed, as is what seems to be a love triangle between her, Nelson's character, and his wife (was an affair with Swanson the cause of Nelson's divorce, perhaps?). If you aren't bored to death and remain attentive, viewers will be waiting for the other shoe to drop, and it never does. There's also a daughter who serves no narrative function other than to be the Object of Worry for Nelson. And then there's the military, politicians, etc. You've seen all of these characters before, in better movies. There's not a single original idea, or even a hackneyed idea done well.

Nelson and David Selby as a general are the only two actors in the film whose performances aren't defeated by the script's banal dialogue. Most of the other performances are flat, and even the otherwise capable Swanson is given nearly nothing to do.

Is this the worst sci-fi film ever made? Hardly. Plan Nine from Outer Space remains unchallenged in that category. The remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still (with Keanu Reeves) and The Invasion (of the Body Snatchers, with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig) are worse, and with bigger budgets and bigger stars. But there's very little here that's engaging, and nothing compelling. The direction is stilted; sequences that are supposed to be suspenseful merely plod along as characters we don't know or care about jump through the obligatory hoops. Yawn. It's possible to make interesting and energetic low-budget sci-fi films (Strange Invaders leaps to mind, or Safety Not Guaranteed), but the makers of this film didn't manage it here. You have to start with a decent script. One wonders how these guys got a production deal.

Monos (2019)

Disorienting on purpose, but powerful if you can connect

[8/10 · 8 November 2019]

Many of the other reviewers seem to have missed what I thought was the point of this provocative and mesmerizing film.

First, let me say that the cinematography in this film is striking. And I think that is part of the point: the world is beautiful, and sometimes dangerous and cruel--but not as dangerous and cruel as people can be.

The film begins with hardly any exposition, and one has to pay attention to discern the relationships between the characters. The first time we see Juilanne Nicholson's character, Doctora, it is not immediately apparent that she is a prisoner. And even when that becomes clear, there is still a lot of ambiguity built into the film by the choices the director makes. For example, there is a scene early in the film in which Doctora is coerced into helping to beat on one of her captors--and we then find out it is his sixteenth birthday, and the beating is a more intense version of a birthday spanking.

Nicholson's character arc is the B plot of this film. The A plot is the shifting relationships among/between her captors--a group of child warriors who are left to themselves at a remote outpost in a ruined bunker. We are not told where the story is happening, exactly (although it is clearly in Latin America someplace), or when, or what cause the characters are fighting for. They are under the command of The Messenger, whose dwarfish stature is probably not an accident of casting. The kids themselves all have nicknames, including Rambo and Smurf; suggesting, perhaps, the long shadow cast by American culture. But the overall lack of specificity lends to the film a timeless quality, one that implies we could be looking at any war, anyplace, and the outcomes would be much the same.

There are echoes of Apocalypse Now and Lord of the Flies, as the behavior of the kids becomes more erractic and savage as they leave their mountain bunker for a trek through the jungle. Interpersonal bonds begin to break down due to the stress. The violence (and life itself) ultimately comes to seem petty, arbitrary, and degrading to the human spirit, which I think is the point of the film. At one point, one of the younger child soldiers articulates her dream of dancing on television, and she may as well be speaking about another galaxy. And it becomes clear that she needs love, and can't get it.

People who are confused by the end of the film must not know that the fascist dictator General Pinochet had many left-leaning dissidents thrown out of helicopters (or that the sentiment "Pinochet Wasn't Wrong" with a helicopter graphic turned up on t-shirts worn by neo-fascists in Portland, Oregon, earlier this year). The predicament of the last character the film shows may not simply be individual, but may be emblematic of the whole of Latin America itself.

The purposefully disorienting effects of the film are intended, I think, to encourage the audience to empathize with the characters in the film. I mean, I hated high school, but at least I wasn't conscripted to fight a war in the jungle or got robbed of a normal childhood. I also wasn't put in a cage for fleeing the kind of violence depicted in this film; a little empathy on the part of the USA might be called for.

The film has a lot of powerful visual images, and the predicaments of the characters are going to stick with me. I count that as the result of successful filmmaking.

The Brides of Dracula (1960)

No Dracula, and Few Brides, but Good Anyway

[7/10 · 30 October 2019]

I've been a fan of Hammer Horror films since I was a kid, but this is a cut above most of them. Most of the familiar elements of a vampire story are present, but are handled well, and with some novelty. Act One is genuinely eerie, like a waking nightmare. Act Two lags a bit, but Act Three makes up for it. The absence of Christopher Lee as Dracula is conspicuous, but David Peel's Baron Meinster is a different character, and hasn't just been swapped in as a substitute; as written, the story would not have worked with Dracula. And while we might miss Lee, Peter Cushing as Dr. Van Helsing gives a flawless performance--perhaps his best ever. The film loses some points for its unconvincing bat and an unnecessary and annoying comic relief character, but is otherwise a good ride.

Welcome to Marwen (2018)

Not your regular Steve Carrell comedic romp!

[9/10 · 29 December 2018]

I am very, very glad I saw "Welcome to Marwen." As a film that is against contemporary Nazis and in favor of tolerance toward sexuality that diverges from social norms, I think it is both timely and important. Steve Carrell plays a character (based upon an actual person) who uses the power of art and imagination to cope with a terrible trauma, and to move toward healing and self-understanding. Robert Zemeckis improves on the motion capture animation that made "The Polar Express" uncanny and disquieting, and the fantasy sequences with the action figures should delight anyone who grew-up playing with the original (12 inch) G.I. Joes. But if you think this is an animated holiday film for the whole family because toys figure prominently in it, you'd be mistaken. But it is moving, and it invites us to extend compassion toward an unusual character, so in that way it is kind of a Christmas movie after all.

It's not a perfect movie; the most conspicuous flaws are in the writing. Most of the supporting characters are shallow caricatures, and Leslie Mann's character is written and costumed in a way that strains credulity (although I think she did a good job with difficult material, and I enjoyed her performance). Merrit Wever is another actress who gave a strong performance in the film, and I hope I see more work from her. The transitions from the fantasy sequences to "real life" are very smooth, the production design work is Oscar-worthy, the cinematography at least workmanlike, and the film is competently made, overall. I know not everyone enjoys Zemeckis's choice of material, but it would be ridiculous to assert that the guy doesn't know how to direct a movie. I also enjoyed the score by Alan Silvestri.

Some comparisons to other films might be helpful. Carrell plays a character not unlike the one he played in "Little Miss Sunshine," and while the cast here is not the equal of that of the earlier film (who were stellar), Carrell carries the film well. However, people expecting him to be as goofy as he was in "Anchorman" or "Date Night" are going to be disappointed and out of their depth here. The kind of performance Carrell gives is more akin to the sort that Jim Carrey gave in "The Majestic," another case where an actor known for comedy confused or disappointed his fan-base by taking a dramatic role. The animation is as good as that in "Avatar," and the story is at least ten times as interesting and sophisticated (but not as nuanced as Zemeckis's drama "Flight" from a few years back). Thematically, the film is very liberal in its approach to its story material, and Conservative viewers will probably find it objectionable, or at least (as some IMDB user reviews said) "weird." Not everyone can wrap their head around identifying with a women's shoe fetishist who fantasizes about being a WWII fighter pilot; that's probably too much cognitive dissonance for some people. But that's a fault that belongs to the audience, not the film.

Suburbicon (2017)

Don't Miss the Point (It's not a Shaggy Dog Story)

[6/10 · 8 November 2017]

I am surprised to read so many bad reviews of this film. One might wonder, of course, why the Coen Brothers decided not to film their script themselves. Is "Suburbicon" as great a film as "Fargo," or "No Country for Old Men?" No, it's not. But it also isn't a bad film, and would probably be getting better reviews if made by someone about whom there were fewer expectations. Clooney's track record as a director is not bad, and this is certainly a competently-made film; the photography by Robert Elswit is attractive, and the costumes and production design are very good at evoking the period. My only real complaint is that a little more exposition would've been helpful at the start, but the filmmakers may have felt that would undermine the story being told (mostly) from a kid's point of view.

As a film about the 1950s, Suburbicon shares some thematic material with "Parents" and "Pleasantville," but takes place in a somewhat more naturalistic milieu. The film may have been mistakenly marketed as a comedy, because it's not really that funny (except in the distinctly Coen Bros. way that films like "The Man Who Wasn't There" or "Burn After Reading" are funny and not funny at the same time, because the offbeat humor is derived from the limitations of human frailty). Viewers may not know that Housing Discrimination is one of the topics of the film, and might be unaware that discrimination of the sort depicted in the film did, indeed, happen in American suburbia of the 1950s (and even later). Where the film really works is in its slow revelation of the moral rot at the center of the story, which takes us into Alfred Hitchcock territory (the scene shot from under the bed, I predict, will be used in film courses). Oscar Issac and Julianne Moore give good performances, as does most of the supporting cast (filled with 1950s faces).

I understand the film may not be to everyone's taste -- especially if you idealize the past, and think that going backwards is the way to make America great again. But I expect the film to get better with repeat viewings, and to be critically well-regarded as we move past an historical moment which might not be warm toward the film's main point. If its ending doesn't make you feel as warm as the ending to "Field of Dreams," then you've missed the film's point.

Allied (2016)

A solid drama, not an action film.

[8/10 · 1 April 2017]

The key to understanding and appreciating Allied is knowing what kind of film it is. The trailers made the film look like it was a genre film -- some hybrid of a wartime action and espionage film. But it isn't either of these. It is simply a drama about two people in the context of WWII, how they come to trust one another, and what happens when that trust is put in question. In the same way that Flight (another good Zemeckis film) was made by its trailer to look like a courtroom drama instead of a dramatic character study, the trailer for Allied misled the public as to what the film was about, and that's never a recipe for customer satisfaction. If you take the film on its own merits, at face value, I don't think you'll be disappointed. The performances are good, the period sets and costumes are outstanding, the cinematography is more than attractive, and the script is suspenseful and moving. It may not be the world's greatest film, but I did not feel cheated by it in any way, and you'll probably be fine as long as you're not expecting something like one of the Mission:Impossible films. Like some of the films directed by Pitt's friend, George Clooney (e.g. The Good German and Goodnight & Good Luck), Allied hearkens back to character-driven Hollywood dramas of the 1940s and 50s. If you don't like Allied, you probably haven't seen enough older films and/or have spent too much time playing video games (and expect your films to be like them).

Enigma (1977 TV Movie)

Not bad for the 70s

[7/10 · 9 May 2013]

I have only vague recollections of this program, which I believe was an unsold TV pilot. IMDb poster Brock Stimson is correct that the show starred Scott Hylands and Soon Tek-Oh as secret agents, and it would be nice if the IMDb page for this production reflected that fact (instead of listing the first three actors in alphabetical order as the stars). I believe the name of the cover organization was the Triangle Corporation. What I remember most was the weapons the agents used, which fired electrical pulses instead of bullets, and which could put people to sleep; this may have been an effort to address the question of violence on television, which hampered a lot of adventure genre shows in the 1970s. I don't remember anything about the plot, and was only 15 years old at the time, but I recall liking it.

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

Better Than Expected

[8/10 · 11 September 2012]

I had dragged my feet on seeing this film due to lukewarm reviews, but I was pleasantly surprised. The Bourne Legacy is much better than the previous installment in the series, although die-hard fans might be disappointed over the absence of Matt Damon and the relegation of supporting characters played by David Strathairn and Joan Allen (and others) to mere cameo appearances. However, the principal performers in this film (Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, and Edward Norton) infuse the franchise with a welcome rush of new energy and considerable on-screen charisma. The locations look great, and the action sequences are genuinely exciting and impressive. The film begins somewhat slowly, but this results in a degree of characterization that helps us invest in the well-being of the hero and heroine, and the pace definitely picks up in the second half. The open-ended nature of the conclusion seems designed as a brief pause before a sequel; while the lack of narrative closure will be frustrating for some viewers, I can hardly wait to see more of these characters from these filmmakers.

Some Kind of Wonderful (1987)

Underrated gem

[8/10 · 20 July 2006]

While many film-goers of the 80s generation fondly remember "The Breakfast Club" and "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (and for good reasons), my favorite film from the pen of John Hughes is "Some Kind of Wonderful." The story felt just like high school felt, with all the painful doubts and growth of one's teenage years, and the film's credibility is greatly enhanced by the excellent performances of all the principle cast members (Masterson, Stoltz, Thompson, Sheffer, and Koteas). The class tensions of the 1980s crop up as real obstacles for the characters to deal with (especially Thompson -- buying in, or selling out?). And how can you beat that great opening theme by the late, lamented Propaganda? Best of all, unlike that humiliating scene in "The Breakfast Club" in which Ally Sheedy's outsider character conforms to stifling beauty norms (she was so cool until then!), none of the characters in "Some Kind of Wonderful" betray their integrity. And that makes those characters ones you WANT to identify with, I think. All in all, an underrated gem of a film.

The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys (2002)

Haunting

[8/10 · 26 May 2005]

This film haunted my head more than any other I saw in the year of its release. It is an emotionally realistic depiction of adolescence (however unlikely some elements of the plot might be) and a disturbing critique of Catholicism (in particular) and authority (in general). Kudos especially to Jena Malone for her performance, which was disquietingly honest. Jodie Foster and Vincent D'Onofrio don't have much screen time, but their performances are memorable (especially his, I thought). The one major flaw of the film is that the animated sequences are rendered in a style that is anachronistically too modern, in a film that otherwise does an excellent job of recreating its historical period. I grew-up during this time period, and the film aroused vivid memories for me (I wouldn't exactly call it nostalgia, because not all of the memories were pleasant). If you see this film and enjoy it, you might also want to have a look at "The Ice Storm" (another fine period study) and "Heaven Help Us" (for more Catholic-school angst).

The Magic Toyshop (1987)

elusive and fascinating (warning: SPOILER)

[16 July 2004]

I saw "The Magic Toyshop" at the Little Art Theatre in Yellow Springs, Ohio, in 1988 or 1989. The film is not a figment of anyone's imagination, but I have never been able to find it again. I recall it being a wonderful piece of non-naturalistic film-making, and it is a shame that more people can't see it.

I think there are two reasons why the film may have been quashed. First, there is some nudity, and since the character involved is supposed to be a minor (and since the actress may have been at the time), there may be some people who consider the film pornographic, or (even worse) child pornography. If so, this is sad, because my recollection is that the context for the nudity is not gratuitous or salacious, and is important to both character and plot development.

Second, the relationship between the evil Uncle and his Irish servants may have been read as politically controversial. And (here comes the spoiler) the transformation of the Uncle into a dummy to be burned on Guy Fawkes Night might also be considered less than flattering to Britain's policies in Ireland and elsewhere (as an American, I am uncertain of the political baggage attached to the holiday, but didn't Fawkes try to blow-up Parliament?). Isn't the film mostly about the Uncle's abuse of his authority?

I think anyone who enjoys Tim Burton's films would enjoy The Magic Toyshop. If the film has been intentionally suppressed, it is a disgraceful state of affairs. This was one of the most fascinating films I have ever seen, and I wish I could see it again and think about it some more.