While it was good to hear details about Rockford's Korean War background, I found the dialogue in this episode to be too artificial in many of the scenes (too much clichéd talk about "ghosts from the past" etc). This is definitely not a criticism you can level at The Rockford Files very often, as usually the writing quality is very good and the dialogue flows much better. But you know the script is not good when even James Garner seems to be struggling to get through it. (And I confess that usually I can't really take Jesse Wells; although she was very effective in her first scene where she comes to Jim's trailer, the dialogue didn't do her any favors either.) I honestly think I would have preferred an episode where Jim's old commander was still alive and they had some sort of case together, rather than it focusing on the daughter.
Reviews
51 Reviews
Cash McCall
(1960)
Doesn't seal the deal
6 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Starts off promisingly, but fizzles out about halfway through when it seems as if the screenwriters didn't really know what to do with the situation or characters, making this nowhere near as memorable as it could have been. The cast is first-rate, from Garner on down, but why this sharp, brisk business drama had to turn into a romantic farce (complete with misunderstandings) is a mystery to me. Nina Foch, always very welcome to see, is wasted in an unbelievable role as a hotel manager who develops an unfounded crush on Garner, which messes up his romance with Natalie Wood, yadda yadda. (Also, why the silly narration about what happened in Maine? It was as if the writers felt the audience would be confused by a flashback.) A really good cast given an unfocused script. I have to wonder if the movie wouldn't have been vastly improved by dropping the whole Garner-Wood romantic subplot altogether, and just having it be about businessmen dealing with each other - the cast was certainly good enough to carry that sort of story and make it interesting.
Ripped from the headlines...
30 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
...the headlines of 1977, that is. This episode was clearly inspired by a real-life story that was in the news the year before, the execution of a Saudi princess for having had an affair. (Look up the well-known documentary "Death of a Princess" for the details.) It wasn't until I watched this episode again that I realized it was a David Chase penned story and was a little cleverer than I had originally thought. Chase treats the Arab family as if they're one of his typical Mob families (which he would later write in loving detail with The Sopranos) so they are not just bloodthirsty bad guys but instead wrestling with their tradition and culture. Richard Moll (with hair!) also makes a brief but memorable appearance as a hulking baddie named Ludes. I actually found the subplot about the real estate scam trying to break up marriages, to be typical of the crazy real estate speculation that goes on in wealthy enclaves. Sure, it's made up, but why not? Anyhow, on second viewing I'm giving this a higher rating than I would have on first viewing.
Fun charming episode
22 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This episode is noteworthy for the no-dialogue opening sequence where Rockford checks out/cons a lady of interest in (Monaco, is it?) - Suzanne Somers, as it happens. To my knowledge, his only on screen trip outside the United States (save for the "South by Southeast" episode in Season 4). This sequence is absolutely adorable and always leaves me with a smile on my face. James Garner was just the best, he didn't even need dialogue to be charming.
The rest of the episode is quite fun too with Jill Clayburgh (right before she hit it big in the movies) as one of Jim's more unconventional Chicks of the Week - she plays a free spirited model living in an art colony. Another great scene is Jim trying and failing to negotiate terms with a hard-ass insurance executive.
One of the better Season 1 episodes showing off the high production values that the Rockford Files always had, but which seemed to be more in evidence during Season 1.
The rest of the episode is quite fun too with Jill Clayburgh (right before she hit it big in the movies) as one of Jim's more unconventional Chicks of the Week - she plays a free spirited model living in an art colony. Another great scene is Jim trying and failing to negotiate terms with a hard-ass insurance executive.
One of the better Season 1 episodes showing off the high production values that the Rockford Files always had, but which seemed to be more in evidence during Season 1.
They Only Kill Their Masters
(1972)
Sleazy, yet quirky B-movie
9 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This is sort of a cross between a B-movie and a TV-movie that somehow wound up in theatrical release with some fairly biggish names (James Garner and Hal Holbrook). It's most notable for being the final movie made on the MGM Backlot, which stands in for a fictional California coastal town called Eden Landing, so small that it's literally a "one-horse" (ie, one-cop-car) town. Yes, there's one cop car that has to be shared by police chief Garner, his faintly stupid deputies, and even his deputies' wives. Also, the only road to the beach goes through a one-lane tunnel. The nice twist to this setting is that hometown boy Garner is thoroughly sick of the place and his underlings, and everyone is pretty much an underachiever, which probably would have made for a great TV show a la Northern Exposure, come to think of it.
Garner is quite good playing an uncharacteristically dour role as the police chief (who, strangely, wears a suit and not a police uniform, which I never understood) - he rarely smiles, not even when in bed with the lovely 70s starlet-of-the-moment Katharine Ross. The mystery is convoluted and, without spoiling too much, really hard to swallow. Suffice it to say that the Doberman is not guilty...
What knocks several points off this film for me, is the level of throwaway sleaze (sordid police cases mentioned in passing, jiggly boob shots, and outright homophobic sentiment) that the script inserts in a vain attempt to seem "ultramodern" yet only horribly dating the picture. It's one of the only films James Garner didn't feel like discussing in his autobiography, and although he gives a fine performance, the movie probably wasn't anyone's finest hour. That said, if you have a hankering for 1970s California and can stomach the word "f-ggot" being said by the film's hero, it isn't a complete waste of 138 minutes.
Garner is quite good playing an uncharacteristically dour role as the police chief (who, strangely, wears a suit and not a police uniform, which I never understood) - he rarely smiles, not even when in bed with the lovely 70s starlet-of-the-moment Katharine Ross. The mystery is convoluted and, without spoiling too much, really hard to swallow. Suffice it to say that the Doberman is not guilty...
What knocks several points off this film for me, is the level of throwaway sleaze (sordid police cases mentioned in passing, jiggly boob shots, and outright homophobic sentiment) that the script inserts in a vain attempt to seem "ultramodern" yet only horribly dating the picture. It's one of the only films James Garner didn't feel like discussing in his autobiography, and although he gives a fine performance, the movie probably wasn't anyone's finest hour. That said, if you have a hankering for 1970s California and can stomach the word "f-ggot" being said by the film's hero, it isn't a complete waste of 138 minutes.
Entertaining for Season 4
8 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Jim noses around a college campus looking for clues on the disappearance of Paul, a young acquaintance of his. I work at a university so while a lot of it was clichéd, I enjoyed his questioning of the professor about her dead-end existence there (because trust me, there are a lot of dead- enders in academe!) As always, this show wins major points with me because of its range of intelligent female characters who were not just there to be love interests for Jim.
The plot of this goes a little far afield, introducing a missing Saudi American prince for good measure, but it's the little things about the episode that make it enjoyable, such as Jim pretending to be a national fraternity official ("Butch") investigating a frat, throwing in ludicrous frat boy lingo along the way. There is also a nice bit of neighborly banter between Jim and the owner of the Sand Castle.
I do need to take exception with the other reviewer who felt Jim showed no reaction to Paul's death at all; we must have been watching a different episode because Jim reacted to the news with clearly observable grief (in the hallway with Becker). But it was never clear just what Jim's relationship with the Douglas family was.
I am curious if this episode, with its somewhat sketchy treatment of the issue of rape (both with the false accusation against Jim, and the appearance of an actual student rape victim later), prompted the grimmer episode the following season where rape was treated more seriously ("Return of the Black Shadow").
The plot of this goes a little far afield, introducing a missing Saudi American prince for good measure, but it's the little things about the episode that make it enjoyable, such as Jim pretending to be a national fraternity official ("Butch") investigating a frat, throwing in ludicrous frat boy lingo along the way. There is also a nice bit of neighborly banter between Jim and the owner of the Sand Castle.
I do need to take exception with the other reviewer who felt Jim showed no reaction to Paul's death at all; we must have been watching a different episode because Jim reacted to the news with clearly observable grief (in the hallway with Becker). But it was never clear just what Jim's relationship with the Douglas family was.
I am curious if this episode, with its somewhat sketchy treatment of the issue of rape (both with the false accusation against Jim, and the appearance of an actual student rape victim later), prompted the grimmer episode the following season where rape was treated more seriously ("Return of the Black Shadow").
Jim's most pathetic beat-down
1 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
For connoisseurs of Jim Rockford getting beat up, this episode features perhaps his most pathetic beatdown ever as he returns home from the grocery only to find two hoods looking for Rocky at his door. They promptly drag him behind his own trailer and work him over, and Jim is only saved by a sneering lifeguard on Beach Patrol who mistakes him for a drunk and doesn't even know that he lives there. Classic.
When I first watched this 2-parter I found it a bit of a bore - a slim story extended to two installments - but on a second viewing, it's just a great Jim and Rocky episode. We find out about Rocky's secret social life, which comes as a shocker to Jim who discovers, among other things, that his dad has a steady lady friend in Beverly Hills!
When I first watched this 2-parter I found it a bit of a bore - a slim story extended to two installments - but on a second viewing, it's just a great Jim and Rocky episode. We find out about Rocky's secret social life, which comes as a shocker to Jim who discovers, among other things, that his dad has a steady lady friend in Beverly Hills!
Missed opportunity
28 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I freely admit that I do not care for the Rita Capkovic character, who was OK in her first, maybe second episode, but has kind of worn out her welcome here. This story had potential - but it needed to also really be about Jim, and not just about Rita, a one-dimensional character if there ever was one. The story is basically, "Rita falls for Jim, who doesn't feel the same way." Yet, it's perfectly believable in theory for this story to happen, because Jim DOES have feelings for her which are obviously complicated by his general attraction to sad-sack, underdog characters (why on earth does he remain friends with Angel? That's why.) The scene where Jim finds Rita in the parking lot and brings her back to his trailer is played in a very oddly intimate manner, just on the edge IMHO of showing how Jim is actually attracted to Rita for all the wrong reasons (thus giving her the wrong idea). Which would be fascinating, except the script drops any and all pretense of exploring why Jim is so friendly to Rita in the first place: he just can't help feeling soft, maybe TOO soft, for mixed-up people.
Perhaps I am applying 21st century "serious TV drama" reasoning to what is, essentially, an easygoing show that doesn't take character exploration too seriously. But, I still think this episode needed to be far better written, it's too much about Rita (who is not that interesting a character). The scene on the beach at the end is honest and nice, but a shame the episode itself was just a bore and even a little cringeworthy (Rita throwing herself at Jim, Jim not noticing? Or in denial? Really?)
Perhaps I am applying 21st century "serious TV drama" reasoning to what is, essentially, an easygoing show that doesn't take character exploration too seriously. But, I still think this episode needed to be far better written, it's too much about Rita (who is not that interesting a character). The scene on the beach at the end is honest and nice, but a shame the episode itself was just a bore and even a little cringeworthy (Rita throwing herself at Jim, Jim not noticing? Or in denial? Really?)
Not up to the show's usual standards
27 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Much as it pains me to say, this really wasn't one of the better Season 1 episodes. (For starters, I think of this one as "The One with the Fake Dennis" - the "Tom" character who seemed to be standing in for Dennis.) It's not very sharply written (did we need the ethyl joke at the gas station?) and the idea that Rockford escaped from that attempt on his life with just a few cuts and bruises, defies belief, sorry! But really the worst thing about it, is that it's slow-paced and boring, and the lack of any of the usual supporting characters (Angel, Rocky, Beth, Dennis etc) drags it down further. We're never really clear what Jim's relationship was with Billy's mother, either... was it romantic? Well, sometimes when it comes to episode writing, you win a few, you lose a few...
One of the best of Season 1
25 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The Season 1 finale goes all out with a fun location shoot in Vegas and the surrounding area as Jim tries to deliver an inheritance check to an elusive girl and, of course, winds up in over his head. The only issue I had with the tight script (and it's a minor one) is that the Mills Watson character, the insurance exec, didn't really have a good final scene that would have rounded out his interactions with Jim. Otherwise, this episode pretty much has it all - the quirky car (green Bug), a musical interlude, humor ("Geronimo!") and one of the series' best action sequences, the chase inside Hoover Dam. (There's no Dennis, no Rocky and no Angel, but they're not missed.) It also has the ever-welcome George Wyner and a nice example of casting an Asian American actor (Frank Liu) in a role seemingly not expressly needed to be Asian... something I can't imagine was common at the time.
No, Jim, no!
18 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the very few episodes where I felt Jim was acting dumb for no compelling reason. Yet another one of Jim's serious ex-girlfriends (Susan Strasberg) shows up, bats her eyes and suddenly our streetwise Jim is so besotted that he doesn't even check the contents of a suitcase he's asked to deliver? Shame on you, Rockford! This script-imposed lapse of judgment remained a big distraction for me during an otherwise fairly entertaining episode, which featured an unusual amount of characters for Jim to encounter (bookies, fences, and a rival private eye who Jim can't fool). Although honestly, Susan's duplicity was never in doubt and I can't believe Jim was even fooled when she was "kidnapped" at the tennis club.
Not as simple as it seems...
14 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I have to admit, when I first watched this episode I skipped over it midway through because I found it a little trite/annoying having a helpless Vietnamese woman speaking in extremely broken English begging Jim for help to find her brother. Talk about clichéd defenseless female! I chalked it up to "well, not every episode can be great" and moved on.
Well, silly me. If I'd just bothered to stick with the episode, I would have seen that everything was not as it seemed, and that it was a pretty intelligently written story with a couple of twists! Good thing I decided to give it another try. The Vietnamese girl speaks excellent English, and she definitely has something big to hide. There's a pretty brutal murder (the architect's wife) and Jim has to do some quick wheeler dealing to make sure everything turns out all right in the end. I don't know why I assumed that the episode was going to be dumb; true to Rockford Files form, it wasn't clichéd at all.
Well, silly me. If I'd just bothered to stick with the episode, I would have seen that everything was not as it seemed, and that it was a pretty intelligently written story with a couple of twists! Good thing I decided to give it another try. The Vietnamese girl speaks excellent English, and she definitely has something big to hide. There's a pretty brutal murder (the architect's wife) and Jim has to do some quick wheeler dealing to make sure everything turns out all right in the end. I don't know why I assumed that the episode was going to be dumb; true to Rockford Files form, it wasn't clichéd at all.
Victor/Victoria
(1982)
Flawed but enjoyable
12 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
People of this generation might not appreciate the fact that in 1982, the subject matter of this mainstream movie was fairly "adult"! In other words, mainstream movies featuring gay characters and gay lifestyles just weren't being made. So, the tolerance that the straight main characters show the gay characters seems "normal" now but wasn't the case back in the early 80s in American culture... (and honestly, I'm not sure gay characters lived so openly with one another as depicted in 1930s Paris...) This is one of those movies where the trailer is spectacular and really makes the movie look more brilliant than it is. In reality, it's a typically bloated Blake Edwards production which is about a half hour longer than it needs to be. The premise is delicious and easy to grasp, so why does it take... an HOUR for the romantic complication, King Marchand, to show up? And was it really necessary to spend so much time on the not-so-hidden double life that Victoria and King lead together once they finally become a couple? (for example, it was not necessary to spend several minutes of screen time on King picking a fight in a bar because he was feeling not so masculine) Robert Preston's performance in this movie is legendary and I have to agree he was dreadfully robbed at Oscar time. However, this is probably an unpopular opinion but I felt Lesley Anne Warren's performance was really quite overrated and grating (not in a good way).
The screenplay makes some choices at the expense of others - for instance, having King discover fairly early on that Victoria is in fact a woman. (In truth... James Garner related in his memoir that he wanted King to NOT know if Victoria was female before kissing her, but the studio felt that no one would ever believe that manly James Garner could ever play a character potentially attracted to a man.) However, it's worth the early reveal, for the scene where King is breathlessly waiting to see if his hunch is true by watching Victoria get ready for her bath.
A great premise that unfortunately didn't really perfectly "gel" as a story... but what the hell, it is a fun and delightful movie (loved Alex Karras the best!) Robert Preston's final number in drag is the the most fun scene I have watched in a long time.
The screenplay makes some choices at the expense of others - for instance, having King discover fairly early on that Victoria is in fact a woman. (In truth... James Garner related in his memoir that he wanted King to NOT know if Victoria was female before kissing her, but the studio felt that no one would ever believe that manly James Garner could ever play a character potentially attracted to a man.) However, it's worth the early reveal, for the scene where King is breathlessly waiting to see if his hunch is true by watching Victoria get ready for her bath.
A great premise that unfortunately didn't really perfectly "gel" as a story... but what the hell, it is a fun and delightful movie (loved Alex Karras the best!) Robert Preston's final number in drag is the the most fun scene I have watched in a long time.
Grand Prix
(1966)
Hot racing action, cold characters
5 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This movie could have been absolutely spectacular if only any energy at all had been put into the human side of the story. Any screenplay that turns James Garner into a sexless bore with hardly any screen time, has got something seriously wrong with it (really - he has an affair with another driver's wife and we don't even see so much as a kiss?) It certainly isn't the fault of the cast, who are all likable actors with very little to do or say off the track. I gradually came to care somewhat about the drivers' stories, but the screenplay worked mightily for 3 hours to make me NOT care. Still, anyone who follows car racing at all can't fail to feel the clichéd-yet-still-true drama of the final race at Monza. "Sarti morta..." Criticisms out of the way, the racing sequences really are all that and a bag of chips, as advertised. I actually own this movie on Blu Ray and despite the fact I don't think it is a great movie, will likely watch it again just for the racing. I only wish that there had been more story focused on the team owners and team politics and drivers being concerned about the track conditions, as I am a racing fan (Indycar) and those stories interest me more.
Well cast
20 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I have to disagree with the previous reviewer about the casting of the book author; she wasn't meant to have any chemistry with Jim! I thought she was great as the superstar anti-feminist author who really is a bit of a hypocrite. One thing that consistently impresses me about this show is that it avoided being preachy about the issues of the day. The only token argument we get is Rocky having his say about women and Jim responding with his more progressive opinion. (LOVE YA JIMBO!) Then any "argument" is completely dropped in favor of showing the characters (the author and her husband) as human - she's preaching the "total womanhood" lifestyle while not doing her own cooking and cleaning, and he's genuinely distressed about their relationship while also cheating on her. No right or wrong, just Jim Rockford ambling through the mess they're all making. Unfortunately as far as the mystery goes, I solved it as soon as the brother came on screen. No suspense there.
Skin Game
(1971)
Underrated movie
13 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Well, if you're going to make a comedy about two smart guys dealing with the horrible institution that was American slavery... this is probably the gold standard (whatever that might be for a comedy about slavery). Interesting that this came out several years before Blazing Saddles, yet was actually a far edgier comedy about race relations in the old West. That is to say, edgy in premise, not in execution: it's simply a light comedy about two con artists who get into trouble. Fans of Garner's "Support Your Local..." movies should enjoy this one a lot.
James Garner is in top form here and Louis Gossett Jr. (credited as Lou Gossett) is very appealing.
The best thing the script does is show us James Garner's character being a bit of a thoughtless jerk who doesn't quite understand his white privilege straight off, rather than having that "surprise" us in the middle of the film as a conflict-generating plot development.
In a nutshell, the premise sounds terrible for a comedy, but it's actually not a terrible movie at all, but well done for its era (late Sixties/early Seventies farce).
James Garner is in top form here and Louis Gossett Jr. (credited as Lou Gossett) is very appealing.
The best thing the script does is show us James Garner's character being a bit of a thoughtless jerk who doesn't quite understand his white privilege straight off, rather than having that "surprise" us in the middle of the film as a conflict-generating plot development.
In a nutshell, the premise sounds terrible for a comedy, but it's actually not a terrible movie at all, but well done for its era (late Sixties/early Seventies farce).
Outstanding episode
16 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This episode was nominated for a Writers Guild of America award for 1977. It was written by David Chase (of The Sopranos fame). One of Jim's casual beach friends, a not so young woman named Sky, winds up in trouble after she's asked to drop off a suspicious amount of money for her boss. Naturally Jim gets sucked into her troubles and gets drawn into her New Age spiritual cult (and her guru is also involved in this mess). During the course of the episode, Jim becomes more and more impatient with Sky's weak grasp on reality, as he attempts to solve the crime (and winds up tracing it back to her corrupt guru). He clears up the matter with the money, but is unable to jar Sky out of her self destructive, cultish tendencies.
This episode has everything you normally would like in a Rockford Files story (car chases, fist fights, and criminal intrigue), and also a lot of humor... but the undertone is surprisingly serious and, I think, the ending of the episode is quite sad. The actress playing Sky, Valerie Curtin (yes she's related to Jane Curtin), is really outstanding and does not play her character too broadly even though there is humor.
Although it's clear that the brainless New Age lifestyle of some people is being criticized (not the beliefs, just the laziness of certain people who get involved in cults), it is definitely not some sort of indictment of liberal values, as Sky is shown at the end involved in a conservative religious cult. (by the way, it is not a criticism of Christianity either, since Jim says he has known about Jesus "for many years now" implying he himself holds some kind of private religious faith). The point being, cults are cults, no matter what their politics. And some people will just never change. (Jim relents and tries to be kind to her at the end, but she just cannot free herself from her own tendencies... and Jim finally has to walk away, losing his friend.) A heavy dose of keen insight into human nature... part of why this show really was so good, and probably part of why it won the Emmy Award for Best Drama for that season.
This episode has everything you normally would like in a Rockford Files story (car chases, fist fights, and criminal intrigue), and also a lot of humor... but the undertone is surprisingly serious and, I think, the ending of the episode is quite sad. The actress playing Sky, Valerie Curtin (yes she's related to Jane Curtin), is really outstanding and does not play her character too broadly even though there is humor.
Although it's clear that the brainless New Age lifestyle of some people is being criticized (not the beliefs, just the laziness of certain people who get involved in cults), it is definitely not some sort of indictment of liberal values, as Sky is shown at the end involved in a conservative religious cult. (by the way, it is not a criticism of Christianity either, since Jim says he has known about Jesus "for many years now" implying he himself holds some kind of private religious faith). The point being, cults are cults, no matter what their politics. And some people will just never change. (Jim relents and tries to be kind to her at the end, but she just cannot free herself from her own tendencies... and Jim finally has to walk away, losing his friend.) A heavy dose of keen insight into human nature... part of why this show really was so good, and probably part of why it won the Emmy Award for Best Drama for that season.
The Rockford Files
(1974–1980)
Holds up so well
29 July 2014
Although I was sentient between 1974-1980, I never watched this show because I was a kid and it seemed like a "boring grown up show." Now that James Garner has sadly passed on, I decided to check it out and am highly enjoying it. Very little about this show seems dated (except for the clothes and the 1970s lack of TV sex and gore). The dialogue often sparkles and even when the plots are repetitive, you just want to spend an hour hanging out with Jim and his friends every episode.
Also, you can tell a high quality show by the caliber of guest actors it attracts. The Rockford Files attracted the cream of the crop of '70s TV, including many actors who would go on to have their own shows and be pretty famous. And of course, Garner is so perfect in this role that you don't even notice the character he's playing is a bit of a loser! (not personality-wise -- but he's got no money, lives in a trailer, has lowlifes for friends and is constantly getting beaten up and arrested... that he managed to attract any women at all is a minor miracle.) I'm sorry it took me so long to check it out. It's awesome.
Also, you can tell a high quality show by the caliber of guest actors it attracts. The Rockford Files attracted the cream of the crop of '70s TV, including many actors who would go on to have their own shows and be pretty famous. And of course, Garner is so perfect in this role that you don't even notice the character he's playing is a bit of a loser! (not personality-wise -- but he's got no money, lives in a trailer, has lowlifes for friends and is constantly getting beaten up and arrested... that he managed to attract any women at all is a minor miracle.) I'm sorry it took me so long to check it out. It's awesome.
Metropolis
(1927)
A true achievement
2 November 2012
After having this movie on my mental check-off list for decades, I finally sat down to watch the restored full-length version as if I were having to complete a homework assignment. Wow, I was so wrong in my preconceived notions of this movie. Yes, the plot line is simplistic, but nothing else about it is. The idea that a filmmaker conceived, pushed for, and actually managed to make this "serious" science fiction epic back in 1925 (released in 1927) makes me want to stand up and cheer. It was one the most expensive movies of its era, and every penny of those 1925 dollars (er, reichmarks) is up on the screen. The original re-recorded score is gorgeous, very accessible, and as a die-hard film score fan, I can say it is one of the most intelligently scored movies I have ever seen. The acting is of the silent era, but don't let that scare you off; some of these actors were quite good! The highest praise I can give this ancient film, is that very few science fiction movies of today can match the passion, vision and depth this film strove for (and often achieved) with 1920's film technology. Bravo -- and hats off to the Buenos Aires film society for keeping the original cut of this film safe for future generations to enjoy.
Hugo
(2011)
A lifeless, overproduced mess
8 March 2012
I generally like Scorsese, but this is just a masturbatory exercise in labored "cinema tribute" that could not possibly do anything but bore children silly and make adults' eyes roll. An awful screenplay gives us characters we care nothing about and situations that have all the dramatic heft of a Rankin-Bass Christmas special - for a numbing two hours and five minutes. Still can't understand why this got so many Oscar nominations (they must have been all technical ones). This movie would make a great double feature with The Polar Express as an example of how to pack a screen full of eye-popping visuals but ice-cold lack of human interest. Strictly for fans of Scorsese, moviegoers who love overdressed sets, and clock aficionados only.
Fringe
(2008–2013)
Shouldn't be this interesting, but it is
13 May 2010
The "science" in this show is so ridiculous that it makes "The X-Files" look like PBS's "Nova" - so why is "Fringe" so often compelling? The answer lies in its trio of lead characters and their strange entwined pasts. One can note the excessively formulaic, laughably logic-bending aspects of "Fringe" while still being captivated by the emotional truths unearthed each week from the twisted histories of Walter, son Peter and agent Olivia Dunham. Watching the first season of episodes, sometimes the scripts were so awful that I can't understand how "Fringe" made it to a second season, but I'm glad it did. The show's writers seem to understand that you can't just keep stringing the audience along on wild goose chases (as in "X-Files" and "Lost") but need to have a payoff every once in a while. I've been watching TV for three decades, and it's no exaggeration to say that John Noble's Dr. Walter Bishop is simply one of the most original and memorable characters seen on the tube in a long time. Funny but tragic, lovable but repulsive (especially because of things he did in the past), longing for redemption but possibly still too ambitious not to get it. The only drawback is that Noble's brilliant screen presence sometimes overshadows the rest of the fine cast. But for fans of extended character drama - and yes, spooky gross-out moments and explosive action - "Fringe" is an increasingly promising feast.
Moon
(2009)
Dull and implausible
6 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The screenplay for "Moon" plays out like a college student's first draft of a film script - where they make the mistake of thinking that they're writing a deep psychological piece by pitting a man's clone against himself. (Episodes of the old Star Trek handled this concept with far more aplomb, and in only one hour.) College student screenwriters also often make the classic error of believing that it's easier to write a script with only a few characters (in this case, just one), when in fact it is much harder. The truth is, two identical personalities stuck in a room is just as boring as it sounds, Sam Rockwell's game try aside. What this movie desperately needed was a lead character who was actually interesting, and interesting dialogue for him to say.
Then there's the general implausibility of having a large army of clones developed and waiting to service a single space mining operation... wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper to AUTOMATE the whole base and not force a human (or clone) to run the place? (If Gertie was competent enough to take care of the dozens of sleeping clones in the basement, wouldn't he, or some other machines like him, be competent enough to manage the mining operation?) That's just a basic failure of Science Fiction Screen writing 101.
Then there's the general implausibility of having a large army of clones developed and waiting to service a single space mining operation... wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper to AUTOMATE the whole base and not force a human (or clone) to run the place? (If Gertie was competent enough to take care of the dozens of sleeping clones in the basement, wouldn't he, or some other machines like him, be competent enough to manage the mining operation?) That's just a basic failure of Science Fiction Screen writing 101.
The Lives of Others
(2006)
Achingly real
21 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Usually when people call a film a "modern classic," they are not really thinking of the old classics at all. But if it would have been possible to make this film back in Hollywood's Golden Age, it would likely have starred the legendary actors of the day, and would have taken its place in our memory along with the greatest classic films Hollywood has produced. It is that great of a story and that fine of a film experience, speaking to the human condition in the involving way that the great films used to do...
And yet it was not possible to make this film until our own film era, because it deals with the recent (though receding) past of Communist East Germany. One gets the sense when watching "The Lives of Others" that this is THE last great cinematic summation of the pains and passions of the Cold War era. Many great movies about the Cold War era have been made, but somehow this one feels more achingly real than all the rest... not an ironic/comic shrug or a savage political critique, but a measured cry from the heart that gives lasting meaning to the very real sufferings of one nation's people (and any of us who lived through the Cold War, wherever we were).
Others have already noted the tremendous performances and the marvelous screenplay, the haunting musical score and moving final scenes, so there is no need for me to repeat this, except to say along with others: See this movie.
And yet it was not possible to make this film until our own film era, because it deals with the recent (though receding) past of Communist East Germany. One gets the sense when watching "The Lives of Others" that this is THE last great cinematic summation of the pains and passions of the Cold War era. Many great movies about the Cold War era have been made, but somehow this one feels more achingly real than all the rest... not an ironic/comic shrug or a savage political critique, but a measured cry from the heart that gives lasting meaning to the very real sufferings of one nation's people (and any of us who lived through the Cold War, wherever we were).
Others have already noted the tremendous performances and the marvelous screenplay, the haunting musical score and moving final scenes, so there is no need for me to repeat this, except to say along with others: See this movie.
Informative in some ways, disappointing in others
20 December 2009
As someone who has studied the Rwandan civil war and genocide in depth, I would recommend this documentary for providing some important background that is not readily available elsewhere in the film and literature about the genocide. The events of 1993 and early 1994 immediately leading up to the outbreak of killing, are often not presented well. Here we see General Dallaire's return visits to UN installations and places where he tried to carry out his initial mission to implement the Arusha Peace Accords of '93, important pieces of the puzzle. This alone makes the film worth seeing for anyone interested in how the genocide came to happen. There is also a visit to the memorial at Bisesero, an important but lesser known locale during the genocide where Tutsi were able to resist for a long time. While the "Ghosts of Rwanda" Frontline film remains the definitive documentary about the genocide, this movie adds some valuable details.
However, the film also uncomfortably at times seemed like a promotional project or hagiography for Dallaire and his friends and colleagues rather than a truly thoughtful documentary examination of one embattled and psychically wounded commander's experiences in trying to uphold an impossible mission. Part of the "problem" is that Dallaire is clearly a determined personality (and was in 1994) and speaks pretty eloquently for himself, but we also need to "see" more cinematically and not just hear people reciting how wronged he was. We needed less talking heads and more on-the-ground footage. (Although the 1994 footage is horrific enough) The film does not exactly take a dispassionate editorial tone... it's savagely condemning of both the UN and the Belgians in particular. (Warning, don't watch this movie if you're Belgian.)
Clearly, Dallaire was a fall guy for massive UN incompetence and immoral world indifference, who deserves to have his story told. I just think it could have been told much better in documentary form.
However, the film also uncomfortably at times seemed like a promotional project or hagiography for Dallaire and his friends and colleagues rather than a truly thoughtful documentary examination of one embattled and psychically wounded commander's experiences in trying to uphold an impossible mission. Part of the "problem" is that Dallaire is clearly a determined personality (and was in 1994) and speaks pretty eloquently for himself, but we also need to "see" more cinematically and not just hear people reciting how wronged he was. We needed less talking heads and more on-the-ground footage. (Although the 1994 footage is horrific enough) The film does not exactly take a dispassionate editorial tone... it's savagely condemning of both the UN and the Belgians in particular. (Warning, don't watch this movie if you're Belgian.)
Clearly, Dallaire was a fall guy for massive UN incompetence and immoral world indifference, who deserves to have his story told. I just think it could have been told much better in documentary form.
Up
(2009)
Pleasant but very artificial
14 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Pixar seems to be hitting a bit of a wall lately. "Wall-E" may have wowed some adult critics, but I noticed that it did not hold the attention of actual children in an actual theater. Sadly the same is true for "Up" even though it has a more childlike storyline. Too many disparate elements -- a house powered by balloons, hordes of talking dogs, a big bird and a giant dirigible? OK, whatever. This is one of the weirdest movies I've seen lately but it's a shame the screenplay is a sort of rehash of aspects of previous Pixar movies. The tearjerking dialogue-free story of loss? We already saw that in TOY STORY 2. Long stretches of no dialogue or limited dialogue? WALL-E. I got the feeling that this movie was just "Let's do a movie about a house powered by balloons!" and they just threw a lot of other stuff at it. (And why did they spend 2/3 of the movie firmly on the ground in a boring, rocky landscape on a tedious plodding trek to a waterfall we can already see? A lot of this movie just isn't any FUN.)
Don't mean to sound too harsh - the characters are lovingly created and occasionally also lovable (although his character was annoying and trite, I loved the expressions on the little Asian boy).The action-packed ending is pretty exciting. And, make sure to stay for the credits to see what happens to the characters. It's by no means the worst Pixar film (that honor goes to CARS)... and I liked this one better than WALL-E...
...but at the same time, it's no TOY STORY, BUG'S LIFE or INCREDIBLES either. It's a given that nothing in UP is going to make any sense physically, but some things in the characters' lives don't make any sense either. Only in Hollywood fairy tales do modern American boys join Wilderness Scouts and go door to door down city streets (!) looking for old men to help, for example. What planet do these writers live on? Slowly over the years, Pixar's stories (while technically as impressive as ever) have been getting more and more contrived and less natural feeling; they also feel as if they're trying to score more points with adult film critics than with the children. (One of the previews at this showing was for PARTLY CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS, which looked like more of a blast for the kids, and a movie I wish they had made when I was a kid!)
But the whole superiority of Pixar WAS the combination of the stories plus the technical achievement. So, this trend remains worrisome. Pixar really needs to get back to basics with their next project.
Don't mean to sound too harsh - the characters are lovingly created and occasionally also lovable (although his character was annoying and trite, I loved the expressions on the little Asian boy).The action-packed ending is pretty exciting. And, make sure to stay for the credits to see what happens to the characters. It's by no means the worst Pixar film (that honor goes to CARS)... and I liked this one better than WALL-E...
...but at the same time, it's no TOY STORY, BUG'S LIFE or INCREDIBLES either. It's a given that nothing in UP is going to make any sense physically, but some things in the characters' lives don't make any sense either. Only in Hollywood fairy tales do modern American boys join Wilderness Scouts and go door to door down city streets (!) looking for old men to help, for example. What planet do these writers live on? Slowly over the years, Pixar's stories (while technically as impressive as ever) have been getting more and more contrived and less natural feeling; they also feel as if they're trying to score more points with adult film critics than with the children. (One of the previews at this showing was for PARTLY CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS, which looked like more of a blast for the kids, and a movie I wish they had made when I was a kid!)
But the whole superiority of Pixar WAS the combination of the stories plus the technical achievement. So, this trend remains worrisome. Pixar really needs to get back to basics with their next project.
Tell Your Friends