acw3 Reviews

The 101 Scariest Horror Movie Moments of All Time (2022)

"Phony Is As Phony Does"

[2/10 · 5 October 2023]

This series, or any series that purports to review productions of this type, is filled with bogus opinions and conclusions. People who participate in the production, writing, directing, etc., of these types of films are selling "snake oil". Films of this genre are not special because of the content they exhibit. Some of these films are good, some are not. But anyone who assigns special qualities to these films in particular moments and describing them as terrific plots or acting, or directing is selling hypocrisy, among other questionable traits. These films are famous for one or two reasons: They are gross and they make money. The acting and the plot are inconsequential. They show blood, guts, horrific special effects and women with cute bodies and that's all; these qualities do not make them special in their impact on the audience. What about a hypothetical movie titled, "Vomitus"? Extraterrestrials land on Earth and spread a virus that causes people to vomit endlessly. They can't stop. They vomit until their stomachs are empty, then vomit their internal organs, then die. How's that for a scary plot? Would such a film be described as a terrific work of art? Would critics be thrilled to see the production value put into such a film? How about another hypothetical film titled, "Fecalmania"? Extraterrestrials land on Earth and spread a virus that causes people to relieve themselves non-stop until they die from losing their internal organs. Would the critics applaud the special effects and the acting in such a film? Of course they would. This is the horror genre at its next level. This is pushing the envelope. This is exploring the next dimension in storytelling. Critics would love the plot and acting in "Vomitus" and "Fecalmania". This is where the horror genre is headed. Won't audiences love the movie? The excitement, the fear, the tension, the vomit and the feces and the stench? Won't people line up to see the movies? Maybe even a second time. The acting would be superb! The plot would be superb! Wouldn't you want to see it, maybe twice? Imagine the endless scenes of people vomiting or people defecating. This is "Night of the Living Dead", only better, right? Of course! And how about the sequels? People who are forced to eat their own or someone else's vomit or feces! WOW! What a breakthrough! How soon can we see the them? Well, that's too long!

V/H/S/94 (2021)

Missed the part where the plot begins to be entertaining.

[1/10 · 5 August 2023]

Have viewed portions of VHS94 and VHS99. I can't see the entertainment value of such whatever-you-call-it. If meant to be shocking, they made it; if meant to be disgusting, they made it; if meant to be revolting, they made it; if meant to be repulsive, they made it. What a list of achievements! The only aspects they producers missed was, "Was it fun to watch?" "Was there a moral?" What's the "take-away" of the film? What might I learn from seeing such a film? To avoid such films (by title, producer, writer or director) in the future? I don't dee these kinds of "productions" becoming "Hall-of-Fame" titles, such as 1951, "The Thing" or 1973, "The Exorcist". This production team has gone "way-off" the rails. What were they thinking? Could I answer the question by watching what they put out? Even 1968, "Night of the Living Dead" was better than this. Hey, I'm not saying it won't make money. It will and the other titles in this series will, also. What does that mean? It means the same thing as when people stop while driving on the highway to look at damage in an auto accident: the blood, the guts, the wreckage. All the same thing. You could find a website that shows actual footage of "gross" accidents, and they really happened! Sorry, This stuff is "fantasy crap"! Avoid these titles like "COVID". You'll thank me, and you'll be healthier for it. 'Bye.

Vertigo (1958)

CAUTION: Possible spoiler alert!

[9/10 · 25 June 2023]

I enjoyed it after seeing it several times; it took me that long to figure it out enough for it to be enjoyable. Still, I have questions I can't get. I think I understood friend "Gavin" was using "Scottie" as an alibi for killing his wife and using "Judy" as a double for Gavin's actual "wife". Gavin would toss his actual wife from the Mission tower. "Judy" would jump at the same time into a safe place, unharmed. The coroner would certify that Gavin's wife died from an accident. Gavin's wife would be buried; Gavin and Judy would fly away. End of story. This is what I thought was planned to happen. Question: Why did Judy stay in town after Gavin's wife died? Weren't she and Gavin supposed to fly off together, 2 happy souls who conspired in a murder and got away with it? No? The end of the film seems to support this. Scottie told Judy the plot as he figured it out while driving to the Mission to re-enact the murderous act, and which I also believed. Judy conspired with Gavin to kill his wife first, then haul her to the top of the Mission tower and drop her off. Judy would jump at the same time; Scottie was a witness to her jump and supposed "death". Gavin and Judy would meet later and run away together. No? If Gavin and Judy were in love (weren't they"), why did she remain in town and run the risk of being spotted by someone who knew her (Scottie)? As confusing as "North By Northwest" was, I followed it better that "Vertigo". The ending seemed to give Judy her "just desserts" and I feel this also supports my interpretation of the plot. I'm not claiming to be correct, just that the plot makes me feel that way. I would certainly "bow" to another reviewer's summary which presents a better "re-cap" than mine.

Under the Skin (I) (2013)

Who? What? Where? Why? Huh?

[2/10 · 2 May 2023]

I am not a sophisticated movie-goer. I don't follow "art-films", works with double-hidden meanings, triple-entendres or double metaphors. Unfortunately, films do not identify themselves as to their perspective or intended audience. Such is the case, here. I go by the title and the description that attends the title. That didn't work, here. I was thinking the alien seduced men, then killed or assumed their identity. That didn't work, here. For someone with a limited intellect, such as mine, I was soon immersed in a sea of "Why? What? Who? Where? And How does it end?" That didn't work, here. Bottom line, the film is a series of brief encounters of an "alien" with men, who having succumbed to the attractions of the "Alien", were lost to "humanity". I don't know what happened the men or why or how the Alien benefited from the encounter; also, why only men? I guess the "experts" would say I should see it several more times to "get the drift". That wouldn't work, here. If I can't "get a handle" on the "thread of the plot" the first time out, a second time won't help. It was strange, where, the "Alien", having brought the "prey" into a place, where, supposedly, the Alien would have her way with her "intended", conclude the experience and "carry on", as they say in Britain. It was odd that the Alien, while walking on the surface of wherever she was, was accompanied by her male escort, who sank into a depth of something ("water", "pancake syrup", or some other liquid). The enclosed area was entirely black, so no details other than the apparent liquid covering the "prey" or which allowed the Alien to walk on the surface, was visible. I guess there are "fans" who enjoy works which are indecipherable in terms of comprehending the plot, the action sequences and how it all wraps up at the end, but not me. Many years ago, a filmmaker replied to someone who was enthralled by a film with a deep message. The filmmaker answered, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union". I doubt a telegram would suffice to relate the message of this work, whatever it was (is). But, I could be wrong!

P. S. If I award the film a low rating, does that count as a "spoiler"?

War of the Worlds (2019– )

WAR OF THE WORLDS (2019)

[1/10 · 25 March 2020]

I watched the first 6 episodes and was dumbfounded by the story.. i expected the usual scary stuff: monsters, ray guns, saucers, little green men, etc.. but, none of that; i was really upset; i couldnt figure out what i was watching; these people were talking, not running; they were sharing, not looking over their shoulder to see what was there.. this is not a movie, it is a "soap opera"! i keep watching hoping im wrong, that a monster will, at some point, declare itself and wreak vengeance on the puny earthlings.. there is a "doglike" creature (machine?) that makes an unholy racket when it moves.. how could this sneak up on anyone and haul them away? after 6 episodes, it hits me; the martians are a mere "backdrop" to the story.. they justify whatever the humans are doing, which is to hide, look for food and try each others' patience.. coping with martians is the least important issue with them.. their ever-changing objectives are to continue with the group, make friends and make-up with the last person they pissed off..

when i realize what i am watching, my anger turns to resignation: now that i know what "the deal" is, i can move to another program and not be bothered by the absence of my interest in this production.. it is a very strange encounter with a strange plot and odd behavior of the characters, but, translated into my "earthspeak" tongue, it's o.k.. the idea is stupid, the plot tedious and slow in development; and the characters always look as if they just realized they hadn't bathed in a month.. but, that's o.k.. if the viewers want to watch a group of people who are, on the one hand, fleeing from unseen creatures from "elsewhere", and on the other hand, looking for a sharing chapter of "adult children of the mellow monster planet invasion", that's o.k., too.. i don't see the objective, but i allow the viewers their choice.. everybody has their "mantra" stored somewhere.

but, i could be wrong!

Possession (1981)

Garbage, Gibberish and Artsy-Fartsy.

[1/10 · 8 July 2012]

foreign films: obtuse plot lines, irrelevant scenes, dialogue that seems to have been translated from its original tongue to Chinese, then to Swedish, then to mongolian, then to nepalese, then.. well, who cares? the symbolism of the film shoots in one direction, the acting somewhere else, the dialogue, well, i mentioned it already, the point? there is no POINT, which IS the point.. it is an experience, much like up-chucking an evening's consumption of beer or whatever is your poison, into a friend's "porcelain facility" of the residence: long-remembered, preferably forgotten.. i've seen "bugs bunny" cartoons that made more sense and "little rascals" comedies that were more rewarding.. at least there was a moral at the end that was comprehensible and fun to watch.. the horror, the devastating impact of this film was watching it from start to finish.. why did sam neil accept this role? did he lose a bet? was he "double-dared" by someone? did he owe money to someone in the production team, and this would square everything? he should have mowed lawns, fried burgers or worked as a greeter at wal-mart.. those things people can forget; this piece? like pictures on the internet, it will last forever.. sam should buy all the prints and negatives and hold a beach party where the evidence is burned as the guests dine on lobster and sushi..

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (I) (2007–2019)

a lot of pain for so little gain

[24 April 2009]

it's so weird to me that people speak so strongly about a program they hate, yet continue to watch.. "..fifth grader?" must be the show you guys love to hate, and can't miss an episode.. about the pace of the show: if it appears to move slowly, it's because the contestants are given time to calm down and become comfortable.. how many of you have appeared before on TV before a studio audience of hundreds which was being televised to millions? fox worthy's jokes, while sometimes lame, are another tool for calming the contestant.. laughter displaces anxiety and concern over how one appears before a crowd, and the fear of appearing foolish from something that was said or done.. about general dislike of the show: so, why watch it? or, maybe you watch it a lot, and get few questions correct? so? join the club; only one contestant won all the money.. more people failed than succeeded.. so? about a student-contributor to the these comments who disliked an ?? or answer: here's something you can fix: get an education, join the team at a quiz show (jeopardy?) and write the questions you feel are better than what you've seen up to this point.. you earlier commenter's are so big on criticism and put-downs, could you do better? so, why don't you? how good does it have to be to meet your criteria? should it be read directly from the encyclopedia Britannia? should the host be an m.i.t. professor? maybe you commenter's forgot the first rules of TV: attract an audience; retain their interest; insure their return for the next episode.. the first rule of watching TV is: if it isn't fun, change the channel.. okay, so it's not everyone's idea of fun-- what is? you like bikini mud wrestling? great! how about basket weaving? great! how about watching shopping networks all day? great! everyone has their preferences and everyone has their idea of what's fun.. do you resent another's enjoyment of a program you don't like? so, find something else! but, get off others' back about what they like!! nobody put a gun (or remote) to your head to keep you watching "..fifth grader?" change the channel or turn the set off, but knock off the knocking of others for the sake of enjoying yourself.. it wastes energy and time.. or do you purely enjoy diminishing another's enjoyment?

The Private War of Major Benson (1955)

something missing?

[15 January 2004]

i loved this movie.. hovey was 2 years older than me.. my dad was career-military.. of course, i placed my dad in the role of charlton heston, myself as tim hovey.. any way, after watching it 10 times, it occurred to me that something was missing from the film.. if you're really busy enjoying the movie, it's not so obvious.. if you've seen it a dozen times, it becomes more obvious.. teachers! there's no teachers in this flick! there's barely any discussion of academics, zilch about teachers they feel strongly about, subjects they love/hate..

what do cadets at a military school talk about? apparently 1) being away from home; 1) wearing uniforms; 3) military protocol; 4) upperclassmen; 5) food; 6) cadet duty; the new commandant..

they talk very little about 1) studies; 2) teachers; 3) graduation; 4) tests; 5) tutoring; 6) what school they hope to attend next..

of course, the story has to involve few people to maintain the tightness of the plot.. still, it would appear realistic to see heston discuss curricula with a teacher, or observe a couple of classes.. a new commandant would do that, wouldn't he?

here's the cast representing the school admin.: the commandant; the principal; the school nurse; the janitor.. other nuns appear, but are not identified as teaching or doing anything in particular..

im not critcizing the film.. it's great.. music by mancini, produced by the two guys who produced the 'beaver' show soon after..

you gotta love it!

The Quatermass Xperiment (1955)

slower is better

[13 April 2003]

NOTICE: FALLEN SPOILER ZONE

i feel the pace is slow, and this gives the suspense a better chance to build to the end. the music is also a tension-builder, and is effective during scenes in which nothing overtly threatening takes place. the use of dark corners and darkness generally suggests that there is much about science which is unknown to us, or maybe i just saw a bad print. the review of the film exposed during the spaceship's journey is also intuitive. it suggests that our technology and powers of observation may not be adequate to even suspect that something untoward is happening..

SPOILER AHEAD

at the end, quatermass does something very significant, albeit insensitive.. when asked what he proposes to do next, he replies (to the effect), that he is returning to his lab (office, etc.) to begin designing the next spaceship.. seeming initially cold and aloof, he is the typical workaholic..he cares for nothing except his job.. everyone aboard the ship is dead.. the remains from the 'adventure' are available for scientists to pore over as they wish.. quatermass's job is get spaceships built, acquire crews to man them and launch everything into space and return them safely to earth, that's all.. this is one focused guy.. and i admire him.. he doesn't waste sentiment and time for those who are lost.. he is concerned about using what he has learned to improve the next mission.. if quatermass isn't working on something, he's burning daylight..

the 'quatermass' name is interesting.. could it have come from 'quantum' and 'mass'? here are two areas of atomic physics, although long-examined, are little understood today.. other films like this one: 'x-the unknown' & 'monsters from space', a quatermass sequel; '5 million years to earth', with quatermass character played by a different actor.

Desk Set (1957)

taste is so much a matter of what you like.

[11 April 2003]

other writers criticized this production for its absence of sparkle or lacking a deeper moral.. makes me wonder why people go to the movies in the first place.. the pair made a couple of color productions.. maybe those 2 are lackluster that's the problem.. tracy/hepburn had no business making color films! some are so easily entertained, and some are so easily offended.. i say this film is a terrific example of "sex farce".. it is fun, unpretentious and shows vignettes of human behavior with which everyone can identify: new kid on the block; man with a mission; gossip; office politics; jobs in jeopardy; office romance; 'the man wearing the bathrobe of another man's girlfriend'; want to speak to the man in charge, or the woman who gets things done?; technology pushed to the limit; a man meets his limitations; lose a boyfriend, find a boyfriend.. the greatest (and last) puzzle of all: would (should) a woman hold back her ability to avoid embarrassing a man she wants to ask her in marriage?

it isn't adams' rib.. but what is? would you see a number of movies if everyone of them were like the best move you ever saw? how many 'gone with the wind' type of films can you stand? isn't the point to vary what you see.. isn't that how you make comparisons? i dont see a movie to change my life, or to compare it to another film in order to devalue one of them.. but, i guess that's what some people call a good time..

Andy's Gang (1955–1960)

good ol' saturday mornins'

[7 January 2003]

froggy would appear and say, HI-DEE, HI-DE, HI-DEE! billie gilbert would appear as the prof. and give voice lessons.. something would happen ( maybe froggy would spray sneezing powder? ) and he would sneeze uncontrollably and leave.. also remember the magic twanger.. from my dim memory, i thought it was froggy's way of triggering a practical joke.. the scenes of the kids in the audience struck me as strange.. i remember that they always were doing the same exact movements, as if the same film was used every episode.. why not, what do kids know? there was a song andy sang with the audience.. only remember the ending-- good ol' andy's gang!

The Larry Sanders Show (1992–1998)

what is wrong with this picture?

[3 October 2002]

**what is the central piece of evidence in this program that says what the show is all about? clue: it's on larry's talk-show desk, it's facing you, it's......the name plate!!!! where else have you seen this? name one talk-show, or any show of any kind that has to remind you, the audience, who you are watching!!! forget the name? there it is!! what's it mean? i'm no shrink! what do i think it means? it's signals the incredibly insecure personalities of everyone in the play.. it goes from larry, the insecure host, to artie, the cool, but insecure producer.. the name plate doesn't merely have his name, it has his job title!! "larry sanders comma host". maybe it signals our short attention spans.. we can't remember who we're looking at or why he's there, so they've put up his name plate with title, to reassure us that, ah yes, this is the sanders show and he's the host.. so, what's on the espn-classic channel? all dialogue and behavior in the play (to differentiate between talking about the program-in-a-program, or the program in chief) supports this one tenet.. when larry sits at his show-desk, you see the name plate; it means he's afraid you won't remember his name or his position, so he's put it in writing.. just check the name plate and watch the show long enough to like him.. the next 25 minutes reinforces this: the insecurity of his staff, home life, buddies, etc. what is the nexus of dialogue here? there are several: #1. lies; #2. sucking up; #3. exaggeration and/or hyperbole; and #4. lies to cover up the earlier lies when it's too late to retract (putting the toothpaste back in the tube).. of course, it's all in fun.. never try these tricks at home, kids, they're dangerous!!

Soldier in the Rain (1963)

location unknown, but it is familiar..

[22 September 2002]

as a 20-year army brat, this film is quite sentimental.. no combat is involved, but as a dependent in peacetime at many army bases, it brings back lots of memories.. imdb has no info. on where this was filmed, but the hospital scenes are familiar.. there may be several army hospitals which are similar to this one--it seems to be a southern location.. with names like pepperdine, where else? anyway, my association is with an army base in louisana, which shall remain nameless.. if info is out there which can specify where this was filmed, i'd want to know, especially the hospital parts..

The Fury (1978)

the big muddy on your mind..

[7 September 2002]

a previous reviewer, klantry, was on point when commenting that "fury" was muddled.. this is one convoluted, confused, yuck flick.. (names are actors' stage names) kirk works for a "super-secret" agency (did "brian" ever tell us who?); his boss (i guess) obviously is john, because john is in on a plot to kill.. who? kirk, andrew? this happens on a beach in.. where? middle east, miami, the reviera? the reason is.. why? kirk said mean things behind john's back; kirk's wife refused a pass from john? andrew's properties are important because.. he can read minds; he knows what women want; if he forgets his girl's birthday, he'll just read her mind.. the "(insert any name here--every film of this genre has one) institute" is important because.. andrew can meet chicks there--shoot, he can meet chicks anywhere, right? amy wants to go there and find a "hunk"; or maybe she wants to train as a red cross technician for the blood donor program.. jeez, this film tells so little and we're supposed to know so much, it's like taking a test in "cosmo" magazine-- no matter what, you still feel stupid at the end..so, what is this run-amok production all about? i've seen my fill of "super-secret" agent films; ditto for "gifted" young people.. whenever amy displayed her abilities, she looked so bored and put out with the people who asked her to prove she could "do something", i felt the same way watching (and trying to figure out) what was going on with the so-called "plot".. it seems those who write favorable reviews of films like this one gush over the director, producer, the ambience, texture, artistry, blah-blah-blah.. but, they never give one word to what the movie is about, what does it mean? why is this film important? why should i care about any of it? this one has me screaming, running out of the emergency exits.. I DON'T KNOW, WHY DON'T THEY TELL ME? one more thing: the book version is equally mystifying and convoluted, forget it..

Quatermass and the Pit (1967)

notice this!

[7 February 2002]

**a previous letter states that hammer films are usually more associated with '50s english horror films..excuse me, but that is exactly what this is! is there a comparison between this film and others from hammer which are not '50s english horror?

next, some really neat stuff..quatermass..the name seems quite similar-sounding to quantum, as in quantum physics..the name seems to mesh perfectly with quantum mass, which, although often theorized about, is little understood and less discussed.

hobb's end, the location of the ship, is mentioned where ancient cultures held ceremonies to celebrate demons devils, etc. ..isn't this where we got "hobgoblin"?

is there anyone who doesn't know that rocks have been found from mars at the north pole? these rocks have formations that seem to be identical to fossilized microbiological life forms..they were ejected from martian volcanoes and floated in space millions of years before being attracted to earth's gravity..not a great leap to a story that suggests life might have developed from visitors to our planet..to paraphrase pogo: we have met the martians, and they are us!

Three Days of the Condor (1975)

sorry, don't get it

[27 August 2001]

********** SPOILER WARNING ***************

the first spy-movie i saw was "the spy who came in from the cold". never got the point. since then, i have never understood the point of any spy-movie, but i keep trying..but i do follow the usual sequence: man goes on dangerous mission--only he and his boss knows of it; having begun, he feels he is being followed, and strange things happen en route to the job, you know: "i can't quite put my finger on it, but something's wrong"? the first person he meets on assignment is friendly, but tries to kill him; now he is on the run, but still on-the-job..he meets other people who are o.k., but he doesn't know who they are..he meets a girl who he believes is on his side, but she isn't..he meets a man who is one of the bad guys, but for some reason (who knows?) is now trying to help him..he finds out his own people are out to get him before or after he completes his assignment (does it matter?)..in the end, he is getting help from the bad guys to help him stay away from the good guys..he either kills the girl who is against him and finds another woman, or converts the bad girl to be a good girl..right? *** so, in the end, mr. joubert, who it seems was out to kill robert ends up killing another guy who was out to kill robert, and helps robert to stay free, because robert found out the cia was trying to protect (?) global oil supplies..so, robert spills the beans to the press, and everybody goes home happy..NOT!! why were robert's friends killed? why the big deal about calling the cia for help? why do they say, "don't hang up the phone, let it drop"? why do they make it sound like he's trying to land a plane without instruments? code words, double-talk, secret codes..bull! ..'nuff said!

The Twentieth Century (1957–1968)

an extraordinary lesson in history..

[21 June 2001]

here is probably the most authoritative, unbiased, stirring collection of historical events on television. cronkite especially provides an unquestioning level of reportage. from world war I to the assassinations of the kennedys and martin luther king, this series renders history into a forceful, contemporary chronicle of events. there should be college credit awarded to those who have viewed every episode and pass an examination based on the contents of this series. beyond the historical aspect of understanding our world and the events that shaped it, there is the "uncle walter" image of one who has experienced much of what he is reporting and the impact on him personally. cronkite is perhaps the most-trusted, well-known tv journalist, next to edward r. murrow and hs two series, "hear it now" and "see it now". no other series which spotlights history as documentary material comes close to what this program has achieved, and no one could make it as worthwhile as "uncle walter" cronkite.

Captain Kangaroo (1955–1992)

details

[4 April 2001]

tom terrific, hero: assisted by manfred, the mighty wonder dog; tom's hat was shaped like a funnel worn upside down. he could shrink to any size to pursue his objective. nemeses: "isotope feeny, the meany" (scientist); "crabby appleton, rotten to the core" (archvillain).

pow=wow, the indian boy: young brave, "loved all the animals in the woods".

The D.I. (1957)

you might also enjoy..

[31 March 2001]

those who enjoyed "the d.i." might also consider a novel about marine training, "maggot", by robert flanagan..flanagan's father served the corps, and flanagan is a survivor of boot camp, as well..it is a brutal, hard story of a recruit platoon at parris island, from day one to graduation..it is more of a "today" story than "d.i."..

about people who classify a movie as being "dated", and other terms denoting age, out-of-touch: it's all relative, isn't it? these movies were contemporary when they were released, and that is the only appropriate way to critique a film..judge as it appeared in its own time.."full metal jacket" appears to be a "now" flick because we are viewing it in its own time..20 years from now, it will draw comments such as "dated", "obsolete", "out-of-touch" and films released in 2020 wil be termed "accurate", "realistic", etc...people judge others the same way..anyone who remembers the beatles as a group is believed to be "over the hill"..anyone who bought buddy holly records is "prehistoric"..20 years from now "rap" and "hip-hop" will draw the same reaction..to all those who base their criticism on when a film, book, or recording was released, LIGHTEN UP! you'll get old one day, and people will give you the same "funny" reaction when you talk about what you thought was "now" and "hip" when you were "young"..

Night Passage (1957)

lots better than that..

[30 March 2001]

this is a terrific film with a terrific cast and an outstanding score by dmitri tiomkin who composed for many films, many of them western: high noon, the alamo.. the film tells of two brothers, one honest, one outlaw, who separate and cross paths later, on both sides of the law..one look at the cast and you know who's what..the plot is somewhat moralistic, as it includes a juvenile who is shown the right and wrong paths in life..today, it would be cliche: no gratuitous gore, sex, language, chases, crashes and few screams..i guess this is what would be known as an adult film, because only adults (who remember these actors) would appreciate how things were done in the '50s..and more's the pity; in those days, less was more..an audience could enjoy one gunshot, one smile, one look and not get as bored as audiences do today when they see schwarzenegger, stallone, seagal, norris, etc., then ask gee, i wonder what he'll do next time that's better? even in the '50s, many films had class, today, it's all kitsch and glitz..thank god films last forever..

Night Passage (1957)

what it means..

[30 March 2001]

the title of the film is the passage thru the mountain that was dug by the miners who got to the other side without finding any ore to mine for profit..it was mentioned early in the film, and used near the end as an escape route with the bad guys chasing the good guys, naturally!

It (1990)

so-so version..better as allegory.

[19 March 2001]

king's works, for some unknown reason, do not translate well into film: the shining might have been better, had nicholson not stolen the show; salem's lot and it were just average; the anthologies, no better. it, though it centered on children (small and large), still licked the sizzle needed for a movie that makes one jump at a frightful confrontation..i never felt that the actors young or adult, truly feared that which proposed to eat them alive..they seemed no more concerned than if they came upon a large hornets' nest: fearful and dangerous, but keep your distance, don't anger them, and no problemo.. what can make this story viable, is a point-of-view that the plot is told as an allegory of children dealing with child abuse..each of these suffers physical or emotional abuse at someone's hands: a parent, classmate, etc., and this story shows how they deal with it..most telling is the response of others who see but take no action to halt or discourage the mistreatment..in one scene, the girl member is roughly handled by her father in sight of a neighbor across the street..the girl and neighbor make eye contact, but the neighbor turns away, as if to say, it's not my business, it's his family's..the community has the same respose: police, newspaper, schools, etc. ..all know what's happening, yet none wish to step forward to challenge the abuser or offer protection to the victim..this tale works well as a parable of what children tolerate from those authority whom they continue to love and admire, even as they scream inwardly for the pain to stop..

Hour Glass (1946–1947)

other credits for mayehoff

[29 November 2000]

in the '50s and '60s, mayehoff became well-known as a spokesman for "falstaff beer"..he performed as the voice of a cartoon character known as "the old pro"..in character (which had the same personality he portrayed as 'mr. jackson' in the film, "that's my boy!"), he encouraged "elwood", who never spoke, as the object of "the old pro's" advice about improving his performance as a professional athlete..the commercial usually ended with the comment, "falstaff..that's my beer!"

Bullitt (1968)

still working on the PLOT..

[24 July 2000]

this is the first and probably only letter about "bullitt" that does not discuss the car chase. i have watched this film many times since it was released and have only recently figured out the plot in the film; i have not figured out why the characters behaved this way. a mob guy ("johnny ross") stole money from his mob in chicago. he was to be killed but got away. a "double" of ross ("renick") was sent to san fran. to divert attention away from ross. chalmers believed renick was ross and put renick in a hotel room for protection from the mob. killers were sent (by who?) to san fran. to kill renick at the start. at the end, ross kills renick's wife at the motel, and fights it out with bullitt at the airport. i still don't know why renick was killed, if renick was needed to stand-in for ross. also, why didn't chalmers know renick was a fake for ross? this plot was subtle so as to allow mcqueen to look good and scenes such as the car chase to steal the show. looks like the plan worked; nobody cares about what the movie was saying (content); only how it made the audience feel (form). packaging is everything..

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

mcmurphy--out of place?

[24 April 2000]

one question: if mcmurphy is involuntarily committed,and possibly violent, why is he residing with patients who are in the institution voluntarily? mcmurphy's attitude and police record would not place him in a group of nonviolent patients who asked to be admitted. i can't believe this would happen in a real mental hospital.