MarkSweepstakes Reviews

The Texas 27 Film Vault (1985–1987)

Fantastic show, fond memories!

[10/10 · 6 October 2023]

I can't believe no one has written or commented about this show!

For those who did not live in Dallas at the time, the "Film Vault" only aired in the DFW Metroplex, and only for a couple seasons. Way back in the late 1980's it just suddenly popped up on late-night TV on Channel 27. It was so unique and hilarious that I quickly became a fan. I even got my friends and family hooked on it, too. The creators basically took what Joe Bob Briggs had already been doing -- poking fun at low-budget horror or generally laughable old movies -- but upped the ante by setting their show in a dank, dark, underground, cave-like place that had vaults full of cheesy movies. The only problem was getting to vaults. Every night Randy and Richard, dressed as blue-collar spelunkers with hard hats and dirty overalls and armed with guns, would risk life and limb descending into the vault to pick out a bad film to watch, shooting at giant rats and other creatures in the process. The show also set itself apart because it had lots of viewer participation, too, like decoder rings with secret messages and interviews with filmmakers and such. They even had one of those 1930's-era cliffhanger serials at the start of each show which cinemas used to include before the main feature. Each episode was a multi-hour event, always very well-produced and great fun. It was along the lines of "Elvira" or "Svengoolie" but much funnier.

To give an idea of how popular the show had become, in 1986 the Film Vault Guys hosted a fan-appreciation event at one of our local cinemas in Plano, Texas. It took place at the AMC Theater, the multiplex that used to be on Premier Ave, near Park and Central Expressway. It was a sold-out showing of Cronenberg's "The Fly". My friends and I made double-sure to get our advance tickets and were eager to attend that night, although we didn't dress up as any character. It was a PACKED theater, not quite a madhouse, but close. I sat near the aisle and very clearly remember Richard trying to make his way through the crowd down toward the screen as co-host to start the show, all while trying to avoid a talkative drunk attendee who stood in his way. Richard was clearly frustrated but he stayed affable and tried to appease the guy. Major props to Richard and Randy for hosting that event and putting up with some of those crazy over-zealous fans. I just know we had great fun and it was well worth attending. Many sincere "Thanks" to the hosts and creators for doing that.

And then after a couple seasons their TV show was gone, disappearing as quietly and mysteriously as it appeared. But I never forgot it. I still enjoy shows like "MST3K" but the "Film Vault Guys" were far superior in every way. :-)

Twirl (1981 TV Movie)

Surprisingly not that bad!

[6/10 · 14 July 2023]

The 70's and the 80's had scads of these "teen talent contest" movies. A great example was "Roller Boogie", the one where Linda Blair was determined to win the roller skating contest. It's the same with "Twirl", too. But with "Twirl" the plot has a group of teen girls competing to be the best baton twirler -- and win the trophy! The grand prizes in all teen talent contest movies always included scholarships and other prizes but the contestants only ever wanted the trophy.

"Twirl" also throws in a kitchen sink full of other drama. The parents are either borderline alcoholics, or have past relationships that come into play, or are so overly obsessed with winning they'll do anything to help get their kid the trophy. Sleep with a judge? No problem! Middle-aged parents are always just re-living their youthful glory days and living vicariously through the kids.

"Twirl" does have its share of cringe-inducing moments. Erin and Lisa hamming it up while singing along to a bad cover version of Hall and Oate's "Kiss on my List" ranks way up there. The final fade-out scene is odd and unnerving. And Charles Haid as Erin's father was much like his "Hill Street Blues" character -- scarily intense. Speaking of Charles Haid, despite a major age difference, he was involved in a quickie real-life marriage to one of the other twirlers, Deborah Richter. I wonder if they first met filming "Twirl", had a steamy affair for a few years, then decided to get hitched?

Honestly "Twirl" is actually pretty good for a what it is. Yes it was low-budget and made-for-TV, but I was never bored, there was lots of very impressive baton twirling skills on display, and even when the "inevitable moment" occurred during the finals I still gasped -- although I knew it was certainly going to happen. I particularly liked the Q & A session. Based on their reactions I think some of the actresses were not told the judges questions in advance and are giving their honest off-the-cuff answers! Either way it's pretty funny and endearing.

Erin Moran as the lead is good, but sadly, even though she is only 21 -- and playing a 17-year-old high schooler -- she looks 35. I wonder if this was around the time she started drinking and drugging. Sad. Hollywood pressure can be cruel. On the other hand, Lisa Whelchel, and her thick mane of golden hair, looks great -- voluptuous, adorable and gorgeous. I'd choose Lisa over 20-year-old Heather Locklear, who also appears in this movie as a contestant in one of her first roles. Tracy Scoggins is also in this movie but I don't think she utters one single word.

Anyway, "Twirl" is definitely worth a watch, even if just for the incredible baton twirling skills. 6-stars.

Space Monster Wangmagwi (1967)

Cheap knockoff Korean Godzilla movie.

[3/10 · 10 July 2023]

Ah, Korea. Land of cheap second-rate knockoffs. Can't afford a Honda? Get a Hyundai. Can't afford an Apple iPhone? Get a Galaxy phone. Can't afford a high end appliance? Settle for something from Samsung. You get the idea.

And so it was with their monster movies, too. "Space Monster Wangmagwi" is a cheap second-rate knockoff designed to compete with Japan's much higher quality Godzilla films. But honestly, there's no competition. It's not even in the same ballpark. Even the worst Godzilla movie is a masterpiece compared to this.

If you were to ask a 4 year old to draw a monster you'd get something like Wangmagwi -- a man-shaped monster with gigantic triangular teeth that protrude from an oversized lumpy head. It's hard to believe adults designed it and thought it was great because it's so juvenile and ridiculous. At least Godzilla had a cool lizard body with a long tail and breathed fire and stuff. Wangmagwi is just a dude walking around in an ill-fitting baggy suit, blinking his eyes and waving his arms menacingly.

There is also far too much attempt at comedy, which falls flat every time and goes on far too long. And all the scenes of the running screaming townsfolk never have Wangmagwi looming over them in the background like Godzilla does, either, which is very off-putting and confusing. Plus the boy with the knife, who I suppose is meant to be the hero, is annoying and hyperactive and psychotic. He sneaks into the monsters ear canal, slices through his eardrum (ouch) and somehow ends up in its nose. These scenes are so random and disjointed you watch them and just think "Huh?".

I have to admit that the miniatures and buildings in the city rampage scenes were first-rate! There were many times I thought the buildings and cityscapes and street scenes were real, that they relied on low-angles or forced perspective in an actual town. But nope, they were just well-lit and well-built miniatures that looked very real and impressive. As did the scenes of the boy and bride rolling around in the fake hand "high above" the city. Those looked very real, too. Guess the filmmakers took the prop hand to the top of a tall building, put the actors in it and shook it around, and filmed over the edge to convey height, much like Harold Lloyd did back in the 30's. Very clever and pretty darn realistic!

All in all "Wangmagwi" is a weird little monster movie, but not in a "so bad it's fun" way. Stick with Godzilla.

High Yellow (1965)

Fairly interesting.... if you lived in Dallas

[5/10 · 10 July 2023]

"High Yellow" is an early Larry Buchanan effort and it really showcases his usual film standards of good intentions and high ideals crippled by low budgets. The entire movie plays like a mid-century "black and white" daytime soap opera (literally). It's not terrible but it is talky and does get boring after awhile because you keep waiting for something to happen.

Cynthia Hull is the films saving grace. She's actually really good in her role as Judy the mulatto servant. She's youthful and attractive, plus her vulnerability inside the house full of crazy drunk rich racists creates genuine sympathy. And I really liked how they opened and closed the film using her exact same statement.

Although the film is supposed to take place in Los Angeles it was very clearly filmed in Dallas. The opening scene takes place near White Rock Lake at the old train station that used to run between Dallas and Denton. Larry filmed many of his movies in and around White Rock Lake. After Judy is picked up at the train station they drive all the way up to Frisco, Texas, to the old Cloyce Box / Brinkmann Ranch. Viewers of the TV show "Dallas" will recognize the mansion as the original "Southfork Ranch" for the first few episodes before the location was relocated to Parker, Texas, east of Plano, for the remainder of the series.

Nickel Mountain (1984)

Langenkamp is the sole reason to watch

[5/10 · 25 May 2023]

An ultra low-budget and forgotten little movie, "Nickel Mountain" is saved from total obscurity by Heather Langenkamp. Exuding youthful confidence, she is definitely the glue that holds this film together and the sole reason to watch.

I always had a thing for Heather back in the day. She was not a classic beauty -- her mouth was always open, she had too many moles, her hair was a frizzy mess, and she needed to lose a few pounds -- but there was something very attractive about her. Her face lit up when she smiled, she had bright blue intelligent eyes, and she just seemed like a sincere, fun and down-to-earth girl. I guess the appeal was she came across as one of those average regular girl-next-door Straight-A types from High School, the kind most guys had a secret crush on but could never figure out why.

"Nickel Mountain" was one of Heather's first on screen appearances. She portrays an innocent 16-year old from a rural wide-spot-in-the-road in the middle of nowhere who becomes mired in a confusing love triangle. She has the hots for the local misunderstood handsome young bad-boy Willard (well played by Patrick Cassidy), but after he knocks her up and splits town she develops a relationship for the much-older and fatter Henry who takes her in (also well played by Michael Cole). Shy Henry dotes on her, yet she still yearns for the bad-boy. Hmmmmm, never heard THAT before. I wonder how this story will play out? :-)

The "hired-because-they-were-cheap" cast is generally made up of unrecognizable has-beens on their way down the career ladder, in addition to up-and-coming soon-to-be-famous newbies like Heather. For instance, I did not realize Henry was played by Pete from the "Mod Squad" because Michael Cole had aged sooo badly. Conversely, it caught me by surprise that a maternity ward nurse was played by Julie Montgomery -- a year or two before her breakout role as Betty Childs from "Revenge of the Nerds" -- because she looked so young.

Fans of "Seinfeld" will instantly recognize Grace Zabriskie who played Heather's mom, although it may take a few seconds to realize the reception nurse is played by Jerry's TV mom, Liz Sheridan. And of course everyone will recognize Ed Lauter because that guy has been in everything. Brian Kerwin also did a good job as the town neer-do-well, but you'll probably remember him mostly from his youthful appearances in TV during the 70's and spend the rest of the movie wondering what happened to him and his career.

The ending of "Nickel Mountain" is completely ridiculous and almost ruins everything that went before. Plus the budget was so low I don't think the cinematographer was given enough lights because the screen was way too dark to see anything at times.

"Nickel Mountain", while by no means a masterpiece, does have its moments and will stick with you long after the end credits roll -- Heather's topless love scene ranking way up there. I'd watch it again, and that is worth 5-stars. Someday I'd like to read the book and compare it to the film.

Replica (2005)

Laughably bad yet very watchable.

[3/10 · 27 April 2023]

OK, by now the film-going public is aware how cluelessly untalented James Nguyen is as a writer and director. All his scripts are essentially identical, usually involving a salesman and his horny friend, a hot blonde, some pseudo science, and really bad special effects. Plus he always wields the video camera like your great aunt does at a family get-together -- tilted, hard to hear, and out of focus. His films have the same plot, the same house, the same recurring actors -- the same everything, over and over.

And yet I always watch his movies -- repeatedly. I think I've watched "Replica" as much as I have "Birdemic". Why? I actually kind of like "Replica", probably even more than it's more famous sibling "Birdemic". "Replica" is shorter and sillier, so it's more fun and not such a commitment. Turn off your brain, keep your expectations low, veg out, and chuckle every once in a while until it ends.

Lana Dykstra as the Doctor makes it worth viewing just for her alone. Her acting is hilarious. Half the time you can't even understand her. She's attractive for sure, I was genuinely surprised how great she looked in her bikini during the inevitable James Nguyen sex scene. I can't find anything more about her after she starred in this movie. I'm curious what she looks like now. But in all seriousness I have to give her props simply because she agreed to star in this movie for no money, she put up with James' nonsense, and she tried her best.

Beginner's Guide to Sex (2015)

The tone of this "comedy" is all over the place

[3/10 · 20 April 2023]

I like raunchy comedies. I love movies that are so bad they're good. And I really enjoy low-budget movies made by clueless artists because their sincere intentions often make up for their lack of money and talent.

That said, I've watched "Birdemic" more times than I can count. If you have, too, you might agree Whitney Moore is the best thing about "Birdemic". I think she's really pretty, can be a good actress when she wants to be, and has definite screen presence. So one day I was searching around on my streaming services for other features Whitney appeared in. That's how I stumbled across "Beginner's Guide to Sex".

But woof, this was such a let-down. I think it's because the tone of this movie is so schizophrenic. It shifts from brain-dead giddiness to truly uncomfortable fear to wannabe avant garde to really nauseating and then back to silly again. It's confusing and ridiculous. Plus it drags. At one point I checked the time, thinking it was close to ending, but was surprised it still had another hour to go!

Whitney's charisma really shines through at times. But for the first 30 minutes her character Laci Cox -- a 20-something virginal sex-ed teacher -- is just way too maniacal. She's giddy, high-pitched, girlishly eager, and loud. She seemed to have popped 12 bennies and inhaled a Hindenburg's worth of nitrous oxide to get into character. To be fair, I honestly felt the rest of cast were all good actors deep-down. I could tell they were all trying hard and meant well so I'll give everyone in the cast a pass. I put the blame for this mess of a comedy squarely on the director. Perhaps he was too lax with the script, or took simple stage-notes to wild extremes, or that his "vision" of the film was just to get it done as fast as possible. Whatever the reason, it's a shame because the potential was definitely there.

This is not really a laugh-out-loud movie. More of a very occasional grin and cringe kind of humor at best. I laughed the most at Simon Rex as the sleazy teacher. Tom Arnold had his funny moments, too. Trav as Abu the basketball star was a really good actor, it's just too bad his character was so intense, mean-spirited and downright scary, which had no place in a sex comedy.

Overall, I don't regret watching "Beginner's Guide to Sex". Honestly this is a movie you will remember, but for all the wrong reasons. I just wish they'd have put more comedy into their comedy.

Overnight Sensation (1976)

Boring and pretentious

[3/10 · 20 January 2023]

A real artsy-fartsy movie. It's boring and unfunny, yet everyone associated with it clearly thinks it's hilarious and Oscar-worthy. It starts out with a long cringeworthy and uncomfortable series of naked auditions. Then parodies of those classic "Ring Around the Collar" and "Flick Your Bic" TV commercials are shoehorned between the "love" scenes in this overly dramatic script. The acting is terrible, worse than high school drama class caliber. Evidently this is the only feature the lead actress "Starr" ever appeared in, so she's a real one-hit-wonder. The John Leslie and Sharon Thorpe characters are in some kind of relationship so he, as director, gets upset when she performs in her scenes with strangers. So they have a "deep" conversation afterward, hug it out, then hop in their VW bug and drive aimlessly down country roads while depressing 70's light rock play. That's essentially the whole movie. Lather, rinse, repeat. Yawn. The handful of scenes are mostly boring and seem oddly truncated. The only thing of interest is the building where they shot the exteriors of the cast walking up and down the sidewalk throughout the movie is now a UPS sorting center. It's located at the intersection of San Bruno and 17th Street in San Francisco and still looks exactly the same!

Tapestry of Passion (1976)

A great looking time capsule but not much more.

[5/10 · 7 January 2023]

I just recently stumbled across the Vinegar Syndrome re-release of this movie and it is worth watching despite the rather boring scenes and confusing plot. For starters, the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous! And I truly appreciated all the exterior location shots, the sets, and high production values. They are by far the best thing about this movie.

The plot? Who cares. Honestly, to me this film was most enjoyable just watching John Holmes wander around downtown San Francisco as it was in 1976. It's amazing how much things have changed (or not)! Like, watch Johnny go the corner of Larkin and McAllister to pick up a newspaper. Then watch him go into the Public Library (now the Asian Art Museum). Afterward, watch him wander down the 400 Block of O'Farrell past all sorts of seedy escort services and porn shops, long since gone. Watch him cruise around in his awesome 1975 Caprice convertible land yacht. Watch him follow Desiree West up to her Nob Hill Condominium high-rise (1170 Sacramento Street). Then watch him visit the home of the sinister Black Widow (2104 Broadway). Finally, watch him mope around the marina after the case is solved.

As Johnny Wadd, Holmes struts around, acts tough, slaps chicks, shoots bad guys, delivers his lines impatiently, and mutters needless obscenities under his breath at the end of each conversation. Sharon Thorpe as the Black Widow wildly overacts (intentionally), screeching loud enough to burst eardrums. Desiree West was beautiful and by far the best actor in this movie. Awesome view from her condo! Annette Haven looked good, too. Luckily by then she did away with her ridiculously thin and arched "David Ferrie" eyebrows that she sported in her earlier roles. Leslie Bovee looked great in a bikini. I was never a John Leslie fan, though -- his reptilian eyes always creep me out.

Anyway, "Tapestry of Passion" is most enjoyable viewed as a travelogue or time-capsule, as well as seeing the cast in their prime. I'd give it a 5.

Blonde (2022)

Disappointing. Not Ana's fault.

[5/10 · 29 September 2022]

I eagerly waited months for the premiere of "Blonde" on Netflix. But sadly, after it was over, I immediately got online to voice my disappointment.

Ana de Armas gives it her all. She's too old and too thin, but she was a good Marilyn. I'd say 30% of her screen time was spot-on (the post-Miller marriage backyard photo-op and playful frolicking come to mind). I could also look past her Cuban accent slipping though at times. She definitely gets an "A" for effort. It's not easy portraying one of the most iconic women of all time while knowing the world would judge your every nuance.

No, I blame the failure of this version of "Blonde" on its pretentious screenwriting, pompous direction and HD cinematography full of needless camera gimmicks, non-stop weeping, and reels of unnecessary and embarrassing nudity and sex (a close-up head-bobbing bj scene, really?). Plus it has a depressing synth musical score that's basically lifted from Vangelis circa 1982's "Blade Runner". But the biggest sin with any work of art that focuses on the endlessly fascinating life of Marilyn Monroe -- it's boring! I lost track of how many times I looked at the clock to see how much time was left. Toward the end I just wished it would get over already.

But it's not a total failure. I gave "Blonde" a 5 because, aside from Ana, there were some other impressive attributes: the first 20 minutes created true unease and angst; Marilyn's house was very accurately recreated inside and out; the guy who played Billy Wilder was perfect; and it was neat how the CGI morphed Ana into Marilyn's actual old films.

All-in-all, this isn't a movie I'd watch twice in its entirety. Instead, I recommend the 2001 made-for-TV version of "Blonde". It's essentially the same Joyce Carol Oates fictional story, just not as depressing or confusing or sleazy, and Poppy Montgomery as Marilyn outshines Ana in almost every way.

Blonde (2001)

Poppy Montgomery is excellent!

[7/10 · 24 September 2022]

Watch it for Poppy Montgomery's performance. She was as spot-on as Marilyn as anyone could be. She had Marilyn's voice and giggles, her quiet contemplative stares, her fearful anxiety, and all her body and facial mannerisms down pat. Poppy was so believable there were moments I completely forgot I was watching an actress, I felt I was watching the real Marilyn. For example her face while asleep in bed with first hubby James Dougherty, or in the backseat of the limousine talking with Darryl Zanuck, or giving a reading at the Actors Studio with Lee Strasberg. I could go on and on. That's the highest praise anyone could give a performer, especially an actress hired to do the impossible -- accurately and sympathetically portray such a well-known international icon and complex woman as Marilyn Monroe. Everyone else in the cast of this made-for-TV movie is just okay at best, and look nothing like the real people they were supposed to represent.

Ad Astra (2019)

Ponderously slow and confusing.

[3/10 · 9 April 2022]

The set design and CGI were excellent and completely believeable. However there was no story. In fact all the pointless action scenes and ridiculous plot points kept reminding me of Homer Simpson's simplistic view of history: "It's just a bunch of stuff that happened". I still don't understand the surges that came from Neptune. And I certainly don't need constant stimulation and I don't nod off in movies, but "Ad Astra" was a disappointing jumbled snooze-fest. The only high-point was laughing at Natasha Lyonne's "fake typing".

No Time to Die (2021)

Very disappointing

[4/10 · 22 October 2021]

I am amazed at the high ratings on here for this movie. Did they even see the same movie as I did? "No Time to Die" was very disappointing in almost every regard. From the bland lackluster theme song until the final credits rolled an interminable time later. When our showing ended, no one was smiling or leaving the theater in a good mood. Remember during the Connery and Moore years when you'd leave a 007 movie feeling upbeat and happy?

Honestly, my gripes have nothing really to do with the plot (killing everyone off as a form of brand house-cleaning). I'm surprisingly okay with that, though I seem to be in a vast minority. No, what I really could not stand was the cinematography. It was murky, grainy, and far too dark. At one point in the film, James and Madeleine walk into a room and the entire screen goes pitch black. Some guy during our theater showing shouted "Turn the lights on!!!" and everyone laughed because we had all been thinking the same thing. Also, the digital camera and CGI effects were distractingly bad. Nothing looked "really real". During the Matera, Italy, sequence I could hear whispers of people around me wondering "Is that real? Is that a real place?". It was because what should have been a breathtakingly gorgeous actual city looked like CGI due to the way it was filmed. Ditto with the endless cars chases and car flips. They, too, looked like something out of GTA Vice City. It reminded me of "The Lone Ranger" (2013) in that the producers made a big deal about how much time, effort and money they spent on all the practical effects and actual stunts, but due to the muted monochromatic digital cinematography, what were actually extraordinarily colorful vistas and intricately beautiful physical sets just looked like fake computer graphics. Same deal here.

There were small parts of "No Time to Die" that I liked, and a few action scenes were impressive. But on the whole it is an overlong, humorless, PC, confusing mess, which looks and feels murky and gritty, and a villain who I still can't explain what he was doing or why. It was obvious Daniel was phoning in his performance. But I liked Lea, she was a good actress and very pretty. She and James and the little girl had a decent enough chemistry. Ana de Armas was very beautiful but her short stint was basically unnecessary comic relief that served no real purpose. Lashana Lynch was fine, too, in a thankless new role. At the very least she was not as caustic as we all feared. However she basically just strutted around, mouth-breathing, wearing baggy clothes, oozing attitude, looking like the spawn of Bill Duke.

Hopefully now that every major character has been killed off in this progressive purge, enough time will pass until the new "reborn" James Bond appears that the masculine tongue-in-check sophisticated joy of the earlier Bond's will be rediscovered. But I doubt it.

The Dark Power (1985)

Low budget but worth watching

[5/10 · 29 August 2020]

"The Dark Power" is hardly better than a student film. It makes no sense and the acting and direction is horrible. The non-stop screaming from the girls at the end becomes very annoying, and the interminable back-and-forth "whip fight" between Lash and the Toltec desperately needs editing. Otherwise it's a totally rad 80's horror-comedy flick and an interesting way to pass 120 minutes.

The location of the house is 9080 Leisure Point Lane, Belews Creek, N.C. and it still looks pretty much exactly the same, inside and out!

Teenagers from Outer Space (1959)

There is a sincerity to this movie that's hard to make fun of

[8/10 · 9 March 2020]

"Teenagers" is one of those low-budget B&W 1950's sci-fi flicks that can be watched over and over because you never get tired of it. It's campy yet highly enjoyable. I must have seen this movie 2 dozen times over the years. Admit it, the ray gun that turns people to skeletons is cool! True, the acting is not great and the lack of budget really shows. BUT there is an underlying sincerity to this movie that is impossible to poke fun at. "Teenagers" is honest, even gentle, hampered only by lack of money and talent. It was clearly a labor of love and it shows. Despite its shortcomings it has stood the test of time, which says it all.

The Giant of Thunder Mountain (1990)

Not great, but better than most low budget Christian-themed movies

[6/10 · 15 December 2019]

I just got done reading Richard Kiel's autobiography. In it he talks about how proud he was to have written and produced this movie. In his memoir he went into great detail regarding all the production and financing problems he had making this film, as well as distribution difficulties and finding an audience afterward, so it was obviously a labor of love for him. I'd never heard of the movie and was curious to watch it though it took me a while to finally find it on a streaming site. Low-budget films targeting a Christian audience are usually pretty bad but I was generally pleased with this effort. Kiel is good as the intimidating 'giant' who's really an orphan, an old softy with an artistic heart. The rest of the adult cast is a cornucopia of well known but generally forgotten old stars that I'm sure got hired for peanuts. Because of the casting fortunately the acting was not cringe-worthy, though some of the "kid scenes" were. The characters were generally memorable and the plot not overly simple or too preachy. I'll admit there were times throughout the story's short running time where I was alternately tense, laughing, or teary-eyed, so it's well worth a 6-star rating. Bart the Bear also made a formidable and memorable character! However the story had enough open-ended holes, and things that just made no sense, to make the overall experience of the film somewhat of a let down. SPOILERS: For example, the boys steal some of Eli the Giant's gold nuggets, rationalizing that they're just going to see if it's real and bring it back, but they never do. Later on, the evil carnies steal the reminder of the gold. Where did this all gold come from? Why does Eli have it? It's never brought up and even Eli the Giant never even notices his gold is gone. Also, at the end of the movie the town folk mistakenly burn down the Giant's cabin. Yet the "happy ending" is Eli trudging back up the mountain, waving goodbye, I assume to live as a hermit again. Um, with no home and no money -- literally nothing -- he's going to freeze or starve to death in no-time flat. So those are the two big plot "HUH'S?" but there are many other smaller "huh's" throughout, too, which mar what should have been an enjoyable children's tale.

Hi, Mom! (1970)

No wonder I'd never heard of this movie, what a stinker

[3/10 · 5 January 2019]

I just got done watching an interview with Quentin Tarantino on Charlie Rose from 1994 where Quentin mentioned this movie, his love of Brian DePalma, and how the racial satire of "Hi, Mom!" not only predated but was more biting than "Bonfire of the Vanities".

I'd never seen this movie so I sought it out and watched it on YouTube. Wow, what an annoying schizophrenic mess. No wonder nobody's ever heard of it. It starts out great and with great promise -- the whole Charles During/sleazy landlord bit was truly satirical and funny, as was the initial Peeping Tom idea/DeNiro/Jennifer Salt sequence (she never stops eating during their date) -- but man, then it takes a complete 180 and nose-dives into a lengthy, unfunny, and very annoying cinema verite style whose point I'm still not quite sure about. The entire second half of the film is one long "Huh?", as is the ending. "Hi, Mom!" is a very dated film and an odd duck for sure, though not totally without merit, but all-in-all it's a misguided attempt that deserved to be forgotten.

On the Road (2012)

Has its moments but is basically tedious, lifeless, and overly long

[4/10 · 10 December 2018]

I live in Denver and recently attended a speech at a local library on the history of Denver. During his talk the speaker mentioned how pivotal Denver was to the classic book "On the Road" and mentioned streets and places here in town that were in the classic book. Well, that got me psyched to read the novel! But alas -- and sorry to all the Kerouac fans out there -- to me the book was a chore to get through. It's essentially the 'story' of a bunch of self-absorbed quasi-intellectual bi-sexual drug addicts, all of whom have obvious Daddy-issues, thieving their way back and forth across the North American continent with no apparent reason other than confusion and boredom. True, there were some sequences in the novel that flowed masterfully and were memorably realized, but overall I got tired of the repetitive and pointless nature of their trip to find "IT" and really only enjoyed it as a travelogue. I found the book much more interesting to see how much has changed economically and physically in America over the decades since it was written than any social/sexual/political/religious commentary Jack tried to get across (i.e. it only took $3 of gas to get from Bakersfield to San Francisco; a poverty-stricken Dean lived in a house on Russian Hill which is now probably worth millions; etc).

Anyway, after reading the book I became very interested in the real-life guys and spent weeks Googling their photos, watching on old videos, and reading as many of their biographies as possible. So when I learned there was a recent movie version with an all-star cast, I again got psyched -- if just to compare it to the book. But the movie was even more boring and depressing than the source material!

Kudos to the set direction which was entirely believable for the 1940's/1950's era it took place in, but the acting and the characters were one-dimensional, cartoonish, and not believable in the slightest, especially Sal/Jack and Carlo/Allen. I will say there are certain moments Garrett Hedlund has spot-on facial appearance and mannerisms of the real Neal Cassady (Dean). However, in the book Dean comes across as maniacal and hyper-excited to do ANYTHING AS FAST AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES TO HIMSELF OR ANYONE AROUND HIM (breathlessly). Yet in the movie he comes across as rather sullen, stilted, mopey, almost forcing himself to be the impetus of anything.

Pretty much every character in this movie comes across that way -- the opposite of how you think they must have been in real life, even down to their hair.

For instance in the novel, during the cotton-picking sequence, Jack hardly picks any cotton at all because he is so content and relaxed while 'working' -- content with himself, his new girl Terry, and the whole migrant Californian environment. But in the movie version Jack picks just as much cotton as the migrants and seems angry and put-upon by everyone around him.

Viggo does a very memorable turn as William S. Burroughs and has his voice and mannerisms down well. The scene of him cradling his baby while unconscious on heroin gives chills, as does Amy Adams' scary turn as his drugged-out wife (who he would later shoot and kill in real life!). But the movie has them living in a large plantation house with acreage -- not the squalid shanty these two drug addicts truly lived at in over-crowded Algiers.

True, you'd have to have read the novel to notice all the 'artistic license' changes made by the filmmakers, but even if you didn't know you'd still be bored to tears and could completely care less what happened to these guys, or give any kind of hoot to know why they were doing what they were doing.

Secrets in the Walls (2010 TV Movie)

What you'd expect from a low-budget, made-for-TV scary movie on "Lifetime"

[5/10 · 3 May 2011]

(There are spoilers throughout this review) Well I caught this made-for-TV movie on Lifetime last night. I was flipping channels and happened to catch it right at the beginning, and once I saw Jeri Ryan was the star I decided to watch it just for a while -- but wound up watching the whole thing -- so I suppose that's some kind of positive note. The first 20 minutes are a tad slow and you're not exactly sure what's happening, that is until a scary gnarly hand appears behind an ornate air vent, like whatever it is wants to get out. Yikes! Ah ha! So THAT was the "secret" behind the wall...." and it lured me in. :-) Anyway, it continues from there as your usual haunting / ghost story / scary old house story: Lots of mysterious eerie things happen, ghostly beings are seen in the windows, one person realizes something's wrong but no one believes her until it's too late, the new owners do research at the library of the house's strange history, then the inevitable 'possession' occurs, then a medium tries to 'rid' the house of the spirit, then the final big showdown between ghost and humans, yada yada yada. The same story we've seen dozens of times, only this one is a low-budget made-for-TV movie, so everything seems to be scaled-down a tad and stretched out to make a reasonable running time.

The good: Jeri Ryan and the girls, especially Molly, are good and believable actresses. The interior of the house and the basement are scary so there's good set design and cinematography (especially that foggy old neighborhood). And when Jeri's brother finally discovers "the secret behind the walls", it's actually pretty scary.

The bad: First of all, there is no way -- no matter how deeply discounted a house is -- that a single mom, having been employed for just 1 day with what looks like an hourly job, and after being out of the workplace for 5 years, will qualify to buy a house of that size in that neighborhood. And after all the scary lead-up incidents, it does go kind of downhill once 'the possession' starts, and by that I mean it's not as scary and loses a little credibility. When Lizzie has her accident on the stairs and Jeri Ryan does CPR for some reason, my first concern was that Lizzie risked being paralyzed, not just knocked out. There's also a scene where Jeri finally hears the music box and it wakes her up -- but WHO was that person in the bed next to her???? And toward the end, Jeri confronts and gets mad at the real estate lady (twice), as though she were a villain and the cause of all Jeri's problems. I realize real estate people will do and say ANYTHING to sell a house and I'm sure that's what the writers intended, but I didn't think she did anything wrong - like she said, she was simply hired by the out-of-state new owners to sell the house and she didn't know it was haunted.

5 out of 10.

Heaven's Gate (1980)

Has its moments, but overall a jumbled, tedious, incomprehensible mess.

[3/10 · 11 March 2011]

The eternally-suffering immigrants in this movie -- having arrived into wide-open 1890 Wyoming from all sorts of corrupt, filthy, illiterate, third-world countries -- are no doubt a product of their home environment. They can't seem to be quiet long enough to reason out how to solve their predicament. Without the help of the rich, smart white guy they would be killed by the rich, evil white guys.

Spoilers....

A fine example of this is during the final battle at the end of the movie. The Kristofferson character has supervised the building of several quite ingenious movable barricades. The idea is they can hide behind these, using them to roll up and attack the pinned-down hit-men who are out to murder them. The basic concept is 'stay behind these and you won't get shot', yet repeatedly during their approach Kristofferson has to pull immigrants back behind the protection of the barricade because in their hysteria they keep running out into the open to throw their dynamite at the bad guys -- and risk being shot. You can almost sense the Kristofferson character shaking his head in disbelief at their stupidity, wondering why he's risking his life to even bother to help. The viewer also can't help but feel the same way during this entire movie.

For a movie such as this -- a 'little guy standing up to a bully' theme -- the basic essential is you're supposed to CARE about the little guy. In "Heaven's Gate", you don't, not even close. In fact, the poor peasant immigrants here are so shallow, so non-dimensional, so loud, so hysterical, so non-thinking that you actually almost find yourself rooting against them. They're just a screeching horde, individuals of which come and go throughout the film and you have no idea who they are, why they're there, and what their dreams are, and as a result you don't care about any of them.

However, the movie as a whole is not horrible -- there are certain scenes that are actually very well done. But as a whole it's unreasonably long and worse, uninteresting. The codas at the beginning and ending of the film of the Harvard graduation and Kristofferson aboard his yacht as an old man are completely pointless -- take them out and nobody would miss them. Most scenes go on and on for entirely too long, for no apparent reason other than the director seems to love everything he does. Like most famous movie directors who achieve fame and praise early on, each of their successive movies seem to get longer and longer and longer, yet not necessarily better, because they fall in love with their own greatness -- and because the studios cater to them and let them. Such is the case here.

I do however appreciate Cimino's attempts to accurately recreate the old west -- mud, filth, dust and smoke included. However the way it's done is went completely overboard. So much of the movie is shrouded in murk you literally can't see or hear anything.

James Cameron's "Titanic" is the polar opposite of "Heaven's Gate". Both movies are very long, tragic tales, and both went terribly over-budget -- each threatened to bankrupt the studio -- yet Cimino's film emerged as a pretentious failure while Cameron's film earned a billion at the box office and is a true masterpiece. Even hardened, cynical types get teary-eyed by the end of "Titanic", even if they won't admit it, and are awed by the photogenic beauty of the film. The difference between to two films is Cameron populated his story with people you actually cared and rooted for -- you wanted the poor immigrants in steerage to overcome their plight, to survive along with (maybe instead of) most of the rich worthless snobs in First Class. Cameron's poor may have been caricatures too but they were not obnoxious -- he filled them with nobility and made sure they took it upon themselves to fight for their lives without the need for outside guidance. The main characters and immigrants in "Heaven's Gate" are simply annoying, the story incomprehensible, and the muted dusty cinematography is shameful.

Kristofferson is rather bland as the Harvard educated sheriff. Hupert is hard to understand, but really does look like a prettier version Anna Pacquin as some here have mentioned. John Hurt's character is a mess -- however the scene atop his horse where he disappears in a cloud of smoke is amazing. Sam Waterston is deliciously evil as the leader of the 'posse'. Chris Walken is also very good as a bad guy -- you never know what he's going to do or what he's capable of. However, when he takes the time to write a good-bye note while trapped inside a burning cabin it's the highpoint of ridiculousness -- and that scene pretty much sums up the movie.

The First Time (1969)

Nothing happens but it's still very watchable. Bissett is beautiful.

[3/10 · 12 September 2010]

I caught this on a late-night cable showing having never heard of let alone seen before. I logged onto IMDb afterward just to see how old Bissett was at the time. She looks great in this movie although she really doesn't say or do a whole much. All in all she's very quiet, very English, very reserved -- and surprisingly at the age of 24 or whatever, still very much the 'older more famous' Bisset we're all familiar with.

The movie itself goes by without much of anything happening, yet you're still compelled to watch. Someone mentioned the simple street scenes and I totally agree, it's actually very interesting to watch Bisset lead the boys around town, to simply see them just walking around in 1969 with no music or dialog.

The 'plot' is basically the 3 boys pick up Bisset who they think is a hooker with the intention of losing their virginity by pulling a sex train on her (so far no one has mentioned the 'yuck' factor, but that's all I could think about). They finally get her back to their hotel room, persuade her into taking her clothes off and getting in bed, and after some discussion in the hall, they each go in and one by one make their move (or non-move) on her, then come out later and lie about it because by then Bisset's actually peacefully asleep from exhaustion. So Stern goes in thinking he getting 'sloppy thirds', yet doesn't cringe at all at the thought that he is about to roll around in his two other friends' DNA surely left all over her. Sorry, not romantic or cute, just gross. But Bisset, now awake and having been just dumped via phone call by some mysterious 'boyfriend', has pity on Stern. She now knows their true motives with her but since Stern is more sincere and less a blow hard than his friends, in a moment of weakness she actually has sex with him, on a dinky mattress with the transom window open so people all over the hotel should have heard them (as HE should have heard his friends supposedly doing it).

Bisset never really gets naked but looks really good in her underwear and she's actually very good in this role. It's an interesting time-capsule of a movie but that's about it.

The funniest unintentional part of the movie was when they finally get on the "Maid of the Mist" at Niagra Falls. It's obviously a studio set and the crew is clearly simply using a rain machine to blow water on the faces of the cast to simulate the mist, and although she's acting 'having fun', you can tell Bisset hates the rain on her face!

Elephant (2003)

Big disappointment

[4/10 · 23 December 2009]

I had actually heard lots of good things about "Elephant" so when it came on IFC just now I made sure to watch it. Well, like many other reviews I've read here -- & boy did I jump on IMDb right away to read other's opinions, it's that kind of polarizing movie -- I admit I also came away VERY disappointed. I also cannot fathom why it won as many critical awards as it did.

Now I truly believe it takes all kinds to make a world & that goes for everything -- it would be a very boring world if everybody thought the same way, liked the same things, acted the same way, wore the same things, etc -- but every once in a while I'll see something so pointless and transparent like this movie -- and yet highly praised by some -- that it reminds me of the story of "The Emperor With No Clothes".

In my high school Art Class there was a kid who would stick a wad of chewing gum on top of a paper-clip or would crumple up a piece of paper and dab stripes of green paint across it & turn them in as an art assignment for a grade. Meanwhile the rest of us were sincerely & with great effort trying to create something worthwhile. Well, you can guess our hippie art teacher used to rave about that kid's "talent" & would revel in lecturing we stunned student about his artwork (that took 10 seconds to create) with deep, long-winded explanations of symbolism, etc -- and yet she was so clueless it was beyond belief. Similarly, years later I had a neighbor who adored showing anyone who visited his home a piece of artwork displayed prominently in his den. It was a canvas painted completely yellow with a little red dot in the upper left corner. He bragged that he paid $14,000 for it, that is was VERY important art, but if anyone ever expressed any kind of "Huh???" about it he would get all offended and uppity and go into a stern know-it-all lecture on how "You Just Don't Get It".

This movie fits into the above category -- expensive, pointless, droll, talentless work that clueless types love to champion, I suppose because it makes them feel superior.

Don't get me wrong, Gus Van Sant's "Good Will Hunting" and "To Die For" are great movies, but in "Elephant" he simply has no clothes. The cast is almost exclusively low paid non-actor kids (and very bad actors, too) and there is only one real filming location, in and around a school, so that this movie cost $3 million to make is ridiculous. Worse still, they spent $3 million making something so boring and pretentious.

Watching this movie is like watching that "Deal or No Deal" gameshow on TV -- both are shows that should only take 15 minutes but are dragged out needlessly for an hour (or an 1.5 hours in this case). They say it's to create mood but common sense says it's mainly just to kill time.

The only reason I give "Elephant" a 4-rating is because I DID watch the whole thing and the reason I kept watching was because I was interested in what would happen. But by the time the credits rolled I realized I'd been cheated and that it was certainly not worth the wait. And yet, I honestly doubt it will ever disappear from my memory like most current movies do.

All I know for sure is that my old neighbor and art teacher would wet their pants arguing, belittling, and lecturing each other on how deep and meaningful it was, while the rest of us sit there rolling our eyes. :-)