thomas196x2000 Reviews

The Lighthouse (I) (2019)

Absolute trash, and not even good trash

[1/10 · 30 January 2024]

Every once in a while, I am reminded of why I don't see too many new movies anymore. "The Lighthouse" is just one of those films.

The fact that this rates in the high 7s makes me wonder, seriously, what is wrong with people today. There is nothing, not one thing, that is entertaining about this film, much less anything about it to rate so highly. And no, some good speeches and atmosphere by themselves does not a good film make.

Are our lives so bad, so wretched, that a film like this provides a release? "At least my life is not as bad as THESE guys' lives!" On another level, what compels filmmakers to create something so atmospheric, so well acted, yet is a film that tells no story and simply either disgusts or bores the viewer?

Dafoe and Pattinson play two guys (Tom Wake and Tom Howard) assigned duty to a remote lighthouse on a barren, cold, rainy island. The setting is perfect for something-anything to happen. The viewer is placed in a mood of dread and fear...that something....something bad, is out there. The two men are there for different reasons-Howard cannot keep a job and Dafoe, with his alcoholism, wooden leg and sailor slang that makes him sound like Popeye, has no other job but something like this. Were people still saying "ye" at the turn of the century?

The movie goes into great detail showing the hard work (at least on Howard's part) and lousy living conditions endured by the keepers. The term for the stay on the island is only 4 weeks, but you will feel like you have spent twice that getting through this monotonous film. The two fight, get drunk, dance, even contemplate a kiss and then the film goes off its rails.

You see, Wake doesn't let Howard hang around the actual lighthouse too much, because he likes to get naked up there and stare into the light. He may even turn into a sea creature. Or is Howard imagining that? As the water turns more foul in the cistern, the two resort to drinking just alcohol, and when that runs out, they start making their own out of kerosene and honey. The relief crew never shows up, their provisions are ruined by rats, and their behaviors become more erratic.

This is basically most of the movie. One thinks it is going to go somewhere, but it never really does. The high point of the movie is when Howard is working outside and sees something strange on the rocks, and it is a seaweed-tangled mass that when examined, reveals a dead mermaid! He touches her face and topless body, and boom, her eyes flash open, she smiles a twisted grin, sits up and belts out an unearthly screech. Ah, finally the movie is going somewhere. But no. It was a dream, or something.

Their living quarters is flooded by a storm, they fight and injure each other, Wake is lead around on a leash by Howard, who starts to bury him alive, walks away from that, more erratic running around, Howard kills Wake. Then, the big reveal. Howard goes up into the inner lighted workings to see what is going on in the lighthouse. He gets there, and opens up the brilliant inside of the machine, and what does he see? What is discovered? Nothing. He just screams and is blinded.

The last shot of the movie is Howard laying outside, still alive while his eyeballs are plucked out and innards consumed by a bunch of pesky island seagulls.

The End.

Yep, that's the movie folks. While we don't get served up much plot, we are treated to every sickening thing a character can do on screen. This includes belching, urinating, and Wake's constant farting. Everything is dark and filthy. If you enjoy seeing Pattinson angrily masturbate, well, he does that several times in the movie. He imagines having sex with that mermaid, who it turns out has a huge vagina. You also see him vomiting, smashing a gull to death, and emptying bedpans. Can these guys use an outhouse, or do they just save a week of poop and wee in a pan under the beds and call it a day?

I re-imagined this movie in my head. Why not go in an interesting direction...what if the mermaid-and mermen maybe, actually were real? What if they, and some other insidious sea creatures that we thought were mythical, laid siege to these two men, who had to use their wits to survive until help came? What a fantastic film this could have been!

But no, we get teased that it is going to be good, but a tease is all we get. The producers don't care, because zombies that live amongst us will go to see this trash and rate it 7, 8, 9, 10.

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974)

Not an action film, but interesting

[7/10 · 21 January 2024]

I saw this movie as a kid when it first came out, when I was 13. I was really disappointed back then after viewing it. I was so excited by the movie poster of Clint Eastwood with what appeared to be an awesome machine gun, and I had heard it was about a heist. So we all went as a family to view it.

An hour into the film, the main characters are still screwing around with hookers, eating, talking, driving, meeting up with a bully, getting in a wreck with an insane guy who has a trunk load of rabbits. What the heck I thought, when does the action start in this movie?

When it does, you get a nude teen fooling around, one of the main characters in a dress, Howard from the "Andy Griffith Show" once again being victimized, and about 5 seconds of screen time with that wild gun I wanted to see. Then, as long as it took to start moving with the heist, it ended. I hated it!

Now, as an adult, I view it really differently. Yes, the one heist in the film is strung out until the end. The previous heist is just talked about, and it would have, in fact, been interesting if they had shown the first heist. That said, there are some really great things about this movie that I, as a 13 year old, did not appreciate, or could not at the time.

One, the cinematography-in almost every scene, is just awesome--starting from the opening at the church. One moment, you are in gorgeous, desolate rolling hills. The next, you are in a new suburban tract of houses, made interesting against an insanely huge blue sky. Creeks, rivers, a riverboat, lakes...I don't think a lot of people realize how beautiful Montana really is. The various subplots are funny and interesting. One should approach this film as a character study, not a heist film, to really enjoy it.

Clint Eastwood is great, as always, but the whole movie is stolen by Jeff Bridges. A wonderful, and ultimately sad, character performance.

Leave Her to Heaven (1945)

Good Film, NOT a Film Noir!

[6/10 · 6 January 2024]

I don't know why this is on several Film Noir lists. There is nothing in this film that is Noirish. If you are expecting a mystery, a dark suspense yarn, a rugged detective with his female sidekick and a contrasting femme fatale--or all the typical noir trappings of lighting, shadows, men who make very bad mistakes, etc, you will be disappointed on all counts.

This is a story about madness and obsession, and an evil woman that covers it up with charm and a nice smile. Gene Tierney does a great job portraying a woman, Ellen Berent, who loves so much that she hurts everyone she comes into contact with. The rest of the cast, including Cornel Wilde and Jeanne Crain give solid performances as well.

Shot well, beautiful locations, and some interesting parts, but really goes off the edge during the second half of the picture. Ellen Berent ends up doing something so out of character that the film's cohesion just comes apart. The entire premise does not hold up very well, and overall, this is a rather depressing film.

Anyone giving this a rating of 8, 9 or 10 either has not seen many movies, or has a few screws loose themselves!

Mousey (1974 TV Movie)

Truly lousy film

[1/10 · 23 December 2023]

I see some 7 and 8 ratings on this film. Laughable.

Douglas plays against type as a professor who really is mousey, hence an appropriately applied nickname. He is upset that his wife broke up with him. And about being teased when he was a kid 40 years ago!

I saw this when it first came out as a kid, and felt slightly nauseated with it, and just re-watched it recently.

It is not a horror movie, or a particularly good character study. You are treated to 90 minutes of a weirdo upset at the world, sobbing, then angry.

The worst moment is a lonely, nice woman sweetly attends to a wound on him, and for no reason he just slashes her throat. We are treated to some extended moments that she tried to get away while bleeding heavily, only to fall over while realistically crying as she realizes she is dying. All she was doing was trying to help him.

The entire movie is underlit, cold, dark and depressing. Not one of the characters is interesting. In the end, he tries to kiss his shocked ex-wife as the police close in, and the last shot he is just a pile of wrinkled clothes on the floor sobbing. So the audience is deprived of any climax, or any small joy of seeing justice served.

Journey to the Far Side of the Sun (1969)

This should have been the perfect movie for me

[6/10 · 10 November 2023]

I was a kid of the 1960s. I followed the space program, I had a poster of the solar system on my walls. My dad took me to "2001: A Space Odyssey", at the Cooper Cinerama in Denver, an unforgettable experience. "Lost in Space", "Land of the Giants", "Star Trek", all of these things I loved.

So along came this movie. I had no idea it was by the folks who had brought us the "Thunderbirds", and "Fireball XL-5", both of which I enjoyed.

So I watched the movie as a 9 year old, loved it, until the latter part of the film. I was horrified at the ending, with the main character dying horribly, and the resulting crash destroying all the evidence of another duplicate world. That, and the ending was as rushed as the earlier part of the film took its time and was richly detailed.

As others have noted, the premise of the film is that a European satellite has discovered another planet, the same size and orbit as earth, on the other side of the Sun. The space agency goes to work to attempt to get funding to send a manned space craft over to the other planet and check it out, possibly even landing on it. The mission will take 6 weeks, there and back.

The movie entertains us with details of getting the funding, spies, trying to contain secrets, etc. Eventually, a handsome American astronaut, Glenn Ross (played by Roy Thinnes) and British astro-physicist John Kane (played by Ian Hendry) are launched to investigate. The program is led by Jason Webb, a ruthless political animal willing to do just about anything to get the mission going.

The astronauts do find the other planet, and do land, much to their confusion, find they are back on Earth. Kane is badly injured and mostly unconscious, Ross is alright but confused. Everything seems backwards, literally reversed. Driving on the wrong side of the road, items that are written are backwards, homes and offices are reversed. Webb, or whoever he is, demands answers on how possibly the astronauts believed they landed on the other planet, which would take six weeks to get to, when they were only gone three weeks!

At first, the "earth" scientists believe that somehow, they must have turned around and flown back, and that Ross imagined going to the other planet. They practically torture Ross to try to break the truth out of him. Once he demonstrates that he can fluently read "backward" writing, and an examination of Kane shows all his internal organs "backwards", Webb starts to believe the possibility that Ross is totally right. There are two Earths, totally connected, each with the exact same people doing the exact same things, only backwards from each other.

The decision is made to prove all this by having Ross fly back to his main space ship still ostensibly in orbit, and go back to "his" Earth. There is a concern of potential polarity issues, as well as how will Ross fare with the "backwards controls" of the lander ship, neither of which make any sense at all.

Another lander ship is apparently built for Ross, and there is a bit of humor as letters are painted backwards on it, which of course are normal for Ross. Ross blasts off and attempts to join the mother ship, but there is an electrical malfunction, his retro jets are fired just as he is linking, and just when he sees normal writing on the inside of the mother ship. The lander is ejected out of the landing bay, the mother ship for some reason burns up, and Ross is automatically flown back to Earth, only to lose control and smash into the space center, killing all the key people and destroying all the data.

We find out about this from the mutterings of a now old, senile Jason Webb, in a care facility, completely mad. Seeing his reflection in a mirror, he races towards it and crashes into it.

The End

The preposterous and downbeat ending really turned me off, and keeps me from rating this higher.

I loved the special effects, and it is clear from years of model making for the various marionette-sci fi shows that this team was very, very good, the set design is wonderful, very similar to their follow up live action series "UFO", which included some of the same actors. The detail is incredible in sequences, including tethering systems, launch processes, space suits--even identity validation equipment and photographic technology. The crash scenes are spectacular. The look of the whole film, for want of a better word, is "cool". I love how the film took the time to consider politics, and human nature.

All that said, not only is the ending rushed, but much of the film does not make sense.

Why would the scientists on the 2nd Earth only come around to the idea that something is wrong after examining Kane and seeing that his organs were "backwards". They would have already checked out both astronauts immediately, and found their hearts were on the "wrong side"

Why does Ross freak out about being on the wrong side of the road...wouldn't he see something was wrong right away as the whole CAR would have been backwards?

Why is he brutally interrogated? Why is there an "interrogation room" even on the premises of a space agency?

If polarity mismatches were an issue, could they not have built a switchover device with sensors to eliminate that risk?

The crash of the original lander would certainly have some scraps of normal writing in the wreckage-getting the wreckage examined or returned by the Mongolians is mentioned, but never discussed again. That right there would have proven the point.

Why did the mother ship suddenly leave orbit and start to disintegrate? Sure, that neatly fits the script, but no reason for that to happen.

Since it has been stated earlier in the film that there have been many, many space missions, why didn't they just send up a normal space craft and check out the mother ship? They would not have needed to dock, they could have latched onto it, and walked right into the docking area and seen the "backwards" writing.

The script tries to explain away why the astronauts did not see life on the 2nd planet....as their course took them over oceans and the poles. However, they certainly would have picked up radio waves and other communications. Nice try in the script, but does not hold out.

There are many other considerations that even bothered me as a kid. The result is a very interesting, and at times fun film that I enjoyed just re-watching last night. Much of the fun is dampened by the ruthlessly downbeat ending. Enjoy it for what it is.

Bad Boys (1983)

Fair Prison Film

[6/10 · 2 November 2023]

Fair movie to bide your time. Although some decent performances, I don't understand the praise heaped on Penn for his playing the lead role of Mick. Penn had one expression through most to the movie. Stone face. Twice I think he welled up a little. That's it. Everyone else in the film is more animated.

This is the usual jail house movie, but with kids, which makes it disturbing. One kid who is raped looks like he is 12. Clancy Brown, in an early role, plays a psychotic- as he would later--on the other side of the bars--in "The Shawshank Redemption". He wears a mullet and unfortunately looks 30.

There is lots of grossness--the initiation to newcomers is everyone spitting on them, and it looks pretty real. Snot in food, and other grunge. Oh it's filthy alright.

Some decent action and a fairly good story, but I have one major issue with it. We are supposed to feel bad for Mick, but I have a hard time doing so. He is shown at the beginning of the film stealing from people and ruthlessly beating them bloody. He never appears sorry for it. He shows some intelligence, but that's easy when most of the other characters can barely read. I never cared about him, one bit.

I didn't care that he liked his girlfriend either; she's an idiot for being with him, and the viewer will have a hard time believing that he won't eventually be abusive to her too when he gets out. A potentially good conversation between her and her father ends abruptly, perhaps the thought was that if the dad disparaged him further the audience might not be in his corner.

I never was.

One False Move (1991)

A Disappointment

[6/10 · 11 September 2023]

I wanted to like this movie, as I had heard some good things about it. But sorry, this isn't a great movie, it isn't a "masterpiece", or must-see film noir. It has some good ideas, and good moments, but it comes across as half baked.

Bill Paxton plays "Hurricane Dixon", a small town southern police chief who finds himself in a position where a trio of murdering drug dealing thugs (Billy Boy Thornton, Cynda Williams and Michael Beach) may be coming his way as it is determined the female in the trio, Fantasia, may be coming home to connect with family.

Dixon is joined by two LA detectives that are investigating two sets of multiple homicides of other drug dealers in California. Figuring out the connection, detectives Cole and McFeely fly out to Arkansas to join Dixon, and wait for a potential arrival of the crooks.

Of course, there is more than a few things lurking below the surface, which brings some interest to the viewer. The first is that Dixon has a connection to Fantasia, feels torn, but also wants to be involved with a major crime and do something besides arresting "shoplifters and drunks".

All this COULD make up a very good film, but this film is not. There are so many things wrong that after a while, the credibility of the film as a story is impacted.

For one, we never, ever get any insight into the criminals. Why is Fantasia with them? She seems horrified of some of the murder she sees, but then she commits the same with no issue. She is the only one with any back story at all. Any good film has some sort of motivation, but we never get any from the characters save Dixon. Even the cops from LA could have been pulled from any other characters from any other movie.

Second, is there are some times when the acting is amateurish, even with Bill Paxton. The placement of people in some scenes is awkward. Even the casual viewer will notice when a scene comes on and it feels like the cast is rehearsing it, not doing it. You will go from one well played scene to the next one which feels like an amateur play.

I place the blame on all this with the director. Not only is much of the direction flat and clumsy, he makes the mistake of mixing stereotypes with atmosphere. Could Dixon be much more of a goober? Why is he pensive around the house and a walking good ol' boy other times? "Why, I have never drawn my gun!" Who is he, Andy Griffith's Sheriff Taylor? Why, during the climax, is there an old black guy in the field on a harmonica?!

The worst is Billy Bob Thornton's work as the "Ray" character. We all know that Thornton can act, and he even wrote this undercooked stew. But geez, what does Fantasia see in this guy? He doesn't even have any slimy charm. Every move he makes seems uncoordinated, and overdone. By comparison, Michael Beach's one note performance as his partner Pluto is great by comparison, and it's not that good either.

Also appalling is the music in this film. There is ONE nice scene, a wonderful high crane shot where a bus drops off Fantasia outside of town, while an airplane is crop dusting. The music-and the imagery-is very good here. But in other places, it's a wreck. The beginning of the film is punctuated by someone riffing mindlessly on an electric guitar. Not only does it not fit the mood, it is distracting. Then there is a scene where detectives come out of a murder scene, and the guitar starts up again. You know where that kind of thing worked? In those idiotic "Lethal Weapon" movies. But here, the music is awful.

This film needed one or two more re-writes, a decent director, and someone else beside Thornton in the film. Even then, marginal entertainment at best.

The Carey Treatment (1972)

Fair thriller, but weird

[6/10 · 8 June 2023]

This film is a bit of a puzzlement. Parts of it have a made-for-TV feel, some of it is quite entertaining, and some of it is odd and a bit disturbing. Some might find that interesting in a "something for everybody" sort of way, but to me the weirdness works against it.

The basic premise is a west-coast Doctor Carey, played by James Coburn, decides to make a move in his life to be a pathologist at a large Boston hospital. We first see Carey arriving, then settling into his job. He also manages to start a relationship with pretty Jennifer O'Neill. He is happy that several friends and associates from his past, including Dr. Tao, are also working at the hospital. The chief surgeon is the arrogant Dr. JD Randall , who is very good and takes the hardest cases. In passing, Carey meets Dr. Randall's young daughter, Karen.

Not too much later, Karen Randall ends up being brought into the very same hospital by ambulance, appearing to be bleeding to death from a botched abortion. The girl dies, and Carey learns that his friend Dr. Tao has been arrested for performing an abortion on the underaged girl. Carey visits Tao in jail and Tao admits to doing abortions to help young girls in a bind, but he didn't perform this one. Carey offers to help solve this mystery and save his friend from prison, setting off the next part of the film into a mildly interesting whodunit.

Underaged girls dying from botched abortions is rather strong stuff for a 1972 movie, back when abortions were illegal and before the whole thing became a political football. In fact, most characters portrayed here don't exactly have a good impression of the whole thing, which is rather refreshing. However, from this point forward, there is a lot of strangeness to the movie.

There are some uncomfortable portrayals and dialogs from the young girls in the film. During the autopsy of Randall's daughter, the film keeps flashing to this young girl bouncing around the beach in a bikini as her dead body is worked on. Carey talks to her school room mate, who doesn't particularly seem upset at Karen's death, and then discusses what a slut Karen was...."threesomes, foursome, and more! She'd do anything..." Carey frightens her into admitting that she was talking about herself, and not Randall.

The movie seems fixated on sex, which is disturbing in a film about botched abortions and death. Throw in a torture sequence to get a confession out of someone, and even a homoerotic rubdown sequence and you begin to get an idea of how truly weird the movie is.

The other part that bothered me is that no one seemed to care about the dead girl but Carey. Her dad just continues to work, the uncle just focuses on cooking, and the stepmom is simply a snarky narcissist. Maybe this in and of itself is trying to say something about the lack of care in all kinds of death, I am not sure.

Worth a look if you are really bored, but don't say I didn't warn you!

Over the Edge (1979)

No, this isn't "How it was".....

[4/10 · 16 May 2023]

...and I think that most of the people that comment here rating this higher than a 4 are probably like some of the kids in the movie, grown up, and still on drugs!

I give the film a 4. Some of the actors, especially Carl's dad, do a good job, but most of the kids are really awful actors. Claude, the blonde kid with the drug issues sounds like he has marbles in the back of his throat. The film was technically fine. Matt Dillon was OK, but pretty much the same character as every other film he was in when young. So a "four" it is.

It doesn't deserve a higher rating, because the problem is with the story. A potentially good idea of a structured town with not much for kids to do, and the trouble they get into. But it is so over the top, it is preposterous.

I knew I was in trouble as a viewer when, at the beginning of the film, two little jerks are firing a pellet gun at cars going under the overpass. They take out the windshield of a police car, which skids to a stop and almost creates a traffic pileup. The kids laughingly ride away, and the rock music comes on as they ride--as if this is something cool.

I am the same age as these kids, and, yes, that is just what the kids looked like back then. And some talked that way. But in this film, there is not one decent kid. Not one. Not even the main character, Carl. I went to two completely different high schools in two completely different states. Yes, there was some drug use. Yes, there was bullying and some fighting. But maybe 5% of the kids had a drug problem...no one I knew for sure. And for me, and my friends, the suburbs were awesome. We could ride our bikes all day, for miles. Big open fields to fly rockets and RC planes. Going swimming. Putting together your first car in your garage. Very little crime. No homeless. Trees to build a treehouse in. Every driveway had a basketball hoop. I look at these awful, foul kids and want to vomit. Particularly that little loudmouth blond girl. Ugh! The entire school it seems loiters about talking about drugs. I am sure that there is a school somewhere as trashy as this one, but never one that I saw.

The film follows a loose narrative that includes house parties, run ins with cops, boredom, beatings and then the "climax", when the kids go wild and trash their parents cars in a parking lot while the are in a town meeting in the school. A clumsy and not particularly effective police officer, who correctly assumes that Carl might be able to better himself, is murdered at the end of the picture, and Carl manages to escape the police car after his arrest, leaving the officer--who might still be alive after being shot by another moronic kid,--to burn alive.

Next scene, Carl's mom and dad hug him supportively before he goes off with a bunch of other kids in a bus to a juvenile facility. Those kids are cheered on by a few of their friends as they go by, music plays, Carl smiles. And that is the end of the movie.

Yes, it is that sick.

Deep End (1970)

Initially interesting, then just dreary.

[5/10 · 12 May 2023]

I finally saw this film, remembering it from one of my cult movie books I acquired a long time ago. Always meant to get around to seeing it.

This is a strange film about a young teen boy who is "coming of age" as it were, and fumbling about with his hormones and a major crush in cloudy, dreary London.

His crush in on Susan, one of those disaffected types that works at a "bath house" where he manages to find employment. The manager tells him upon his hire, "work hard, and you might find yourself behind this desk someday!"--as if that were a good thing--while he chuckles and exposes his rotting teeth. Certainly a bit of a metaphor there.

Susan likes to tease the kid, Mike, and other men as well. She shows him the ropes at the pool house, and suggests he "plays along" with some of the female clients in the private baths, to get extra tips. Susan does the same, going a bit further than just playing around.

Susan's sexy teasings lead Mike to have a dangerous infatuation with her, which leads to some bad places.

At the same time, we are introduced to all sorts of characters, none of who are good. It seems everyone is sex charged, in negative ways; a pervy "coach" who likes little girls, Diana Dors thrown in there as an orgasmic patron, sex workers, even a young school colleague of Mike's who wants to have sex with him in her bath. You may ask yourself, what's in the water at this place?

And speaking of this place, for me, the star of this movie is the creaking, grotesque bath house. Shabby and run down, it is exactly the place you would NOT want to get naked and have a bath at. You get the impression that even the water is dirty. I have always had a bit of a phobia of large, indoor bodies of water, and if you feel the same, you will be haunted by this movie. There is a creepy, gigantic pool, which for some odd reason has a cluster of huge steel spotlights hanging above it. Every hallway, every bath is decrepit and falling apart. It looks like something that survived-barely-the bombing of London, so someone bought it on the cheap and made it a bath house. Yech.

What starts as an odd, intriguing film runs out of steam 1/2 way through. The more Mike is obsessed with Susan, the less interesting the whole thing becomes.

Mute (II) (2018)

Great stuff and ugly stuff creates mediocre rating

[5/10 · 21 March 2023]

I had never heard of this film, and just watched it in 2023, suckered into the idea that this was a "spiritual sequel" to Jones' "Moon", one of my favorite films and a real delight. In fact, there are some visual references to the character from Moon, with the Sam Bell "character" testifying in a courtroom via news telecasts--obviously after he got back to Earth and decimated his former employer with his testimony. Those fleeting moments in context of this film will likely cause the viewer to wish he was watching that telecast rather than continuing on with this movie. But never mind.

The film starts in more or less the present day when the lead character, Leo, gets injured as a child and loses his ability to speak, and then flashes forward to 30 years into the future. We then get an examination into the life of Leo in futuristic Berlin, mute by reason of his childhood accident and damage to his throat. He works at a strip bar with his lover, Naadirah, who keeps a number of secrets from Leo.

Naadirah disappears suddenly, and Leo spends the rest of the movie trying to find her. The plot introduces a duo of American ex-army doctors who put back together shot up Russian and German gangsters for money. They are Cactus Bill and Duck. They each have their disturbing secrets as well, nausea-creating ones.

All the characters collide towards the end of the movie, and I won't reveal more in a non-spoiler review, and best not stated.

The plusses of the movie were in its production. The photography and effects--regardless of what you might read from other posters-- are great. Things look, for want of a better word, real. Aside from the floating taxicabs, I buy it. It is brilliant in showing how some new technology doesn't really help, it just sort of numbs. Yeah, I can get my dinner delivered to me when I am, literally, on the run, but it's just a cold, cardboard affair brought in by drone. Yech.

Every movie I have ever watched about life in Berlin left me yearning to get my virtual-self the heck out of there, and this movie is no exception. While there are futuristic elements in the film, from advanced cybernetics and touch screens everywhere--even where they don't make sense, this is no cool future. Everything you might be afraid of happening in the future is here in 2030s Berlin. Along with the typical Berlin characterizations; it is always cold, tons of prostitution and crime, perverts, bright lights, arty style, and more dreariness. If that was the intent, the movie hit it dead center. You'd want to take a hot shower if you lived in that place, three times a day, but there's a feeling that the water itself would have a filth to it.

In addition to this, aside from the main character, there is no one here to like. The two "doctors" are off the rails sick, the missing girlfriend (who has a wonderful face that is pleasant and at the same time harsh and worn) and the rest of the cast are crossdressers, a weird cyber critter or two, prostitutes, and gangsters. Very little good comes of any of this, although there is some hope at the end.

Your decision will be whether you want to sit through all this to get to it.

The Power (1968)

7+ Fun From My Childhood

[7/10 · 14 March 2023]

I haven't seen this film since it came out in 1968! I remember liking it, and I remembered very distinctly, for some reason, the scene where the team attempts to move a piece of paper with just their minds. Curious how I would remember that.

Watching it again in 2023 I was prepared to be hugely disappointed, but in fact, I really liked it.

The premise is a group of scientists are involved in research on human's capacity to withstand pain and discomfort, in order to better understand what traits in what kind of people to look for when considering people for dangerous jobs such as space travel. In essence, what makes some people able to endure, and some not able to at all?

This is intriguing, but events take a wild turn when it is discovered that one of the scientists--and no one knows who it is, nor do we-- has an incredible "power" to be able to control others and their actions, and even kill them telepathically. The plot shifts to a whodunit, and whoisdoingit.

The film moves right along, with a splendid cast including George Hamilton, Suzanne Pleshette, Michael Rennie, plus Richard Carlson, Earl Holliman, Arthur O'Connell, even Gary Merrill!

There is plenty of suspense, and although directed by Byron Haskin, this is a George Pal production. There is a bit of his animation and effects in the film, some charming, some a bit off the mark, but all fun.

One other point. The folks behind the art direction and set design appear to be folks that were told to "pull all the stops out", and they did. I LOVE the look of this film. The big globe outside the science building. The mid century modern motifs running throughout. The snazzy Chrysler cars. And the use of color, with some scenes having saturation beyond belief. The canary yellow of Hamilton's car, the blood red emergency lights of the centrifuge, desert blue skies, and the party scene with yellow, bright green, purple elements. The totally 60s pastels of Yvonne De Carlos' mobile home. Even the office interiors had bright colored binders, furniture, and interesting architectural tidbits.

Don't take it too seriously and have some real 1960s fun.

The Incredible Melting Man (1977)

One of my most hated movies

[1/10 · 14 March 2023]

Yes, you can say I signed up for this as a kid going to see it in an empty theater. I mean, the guy melts, what do you expect? I thought it would be a good sci-fi fi movie with a guy who is turning into a monster, on the level of "The Outer Limits", which, I was consuming and enjoying on late night reruns at the time.

Nope. There is no good science fiction here, or a scary scene in space, or a lead that you feel sorry for as his humanity slips away. In any decently talented hands, you could have had this without spending any more of the obviously limited budget. What you did get is a young Rick Baker creating novel special effects...which were not horrifying, simply disgusting. There's a difference.

It's like they made this movie to purposely stick it to you. Shot a lot at night to save on having good effects, it basically has the astronaut, played by some amateur named Alex Rebar, stumble around killing people as pieces of his body fall off. (If you are thinking this might be an early, low rent version of a film like "The Fly", forget it) . Disgusting gore is just thrown in there. An old guy gets murdered, his head torn off, and thrown into a river. The camera follows the head until it crashes on a rock and breaks open like a bloody egg. I kid you not.

Character actor Burr DeBenning slummed for a paycheck as the "hero", but he falls into a power line and burns up gruesomely . Eventually, the astronaut makes it back to the space launch area, slumps against a hanger, and finishes dissolving into a puddle. 1/2 way through this scene, it ALMOST appears that something just a bit interesting may be happening, a solid form appears almost as if maybe he is not melting, but CHANGING....into an alien perhaps? No, that would have been too good an idea. A moment later that form caves in with plenty of sloppy goo, and the astronaut's remains are mopped up by a janitor. There's an announcer on the PA that states another rocket is going up. Oh no, it's going to happen again!!!!

There, I saved you 90 minutes.

The Whale (2022)

Great acting, pretentious film

[5/10 · 6 March 2023]

There is so much here to "unpack".

Sorry, this movie is not a 10, it is not a "masterpiece". It is not about a morbidly obese guy trying to make a change in his life. If you are looking for those things, you will be disappointed.

Brendan Frasier plays Charley, a morbidly obese college instructor who teaches college English classes online. He covers his camera so the kids don't see what he looks like. He is in extremely bad shape, but will not go to see expensive doctors. He has one friend, Liz, who takes care of him and likely keeps him alive. But she also feeds him terrible food as she feels sorry for him.

His health is rapidly deteriorating, and the movie is like a countdown to his end. In the meantime, we discover he was always heavy, but went way over the top once his gay lover killed himself.

A daughter he hasn't seen in years comes back into his life, via an awkward payment and homework "help" plan, as well as his ex-wife, and a missionary, and the sparks between all parties fly. There is plenty of good dialog and some truly moving moments. Great acting from all parties, particularly Frasier.

What loses the movie for me is the script. Not only do the characters act in ways that make no sense, the REASONS behind their actions are preposterous.

Second, the entire movie has a big, FAT thread of anti-Christianity running through it. To the point of absurdity. Everyone's parents seem to be obnoxious born-agains that absolutely ruin their kids' lives. The movie takes cheap shots at the Bible, including the dusty old premise of "how could a God do this" and, "I can't believe a God would populate the world and then send almost everyone to Hell". The only time Charlie gets angry in the whole film is when he is encouraged by the missionary to think about these concepts, and the idea of being saved.

As the movie goes on, the worst person in this little ensemble is elevated by Charlie as "amazing", his daughter, who is a sociopath. Charlie's ex wife is the ONLY character that makes sense. She is, with good reason, bitter that Charlie left her for another man. She is the only one that thinks her daughter is evil, which, sorry to say, she freaking is. Lots of kids are a bitter because a parent walked out. But this kid is a freak. The mom mentions horrific things she has done in school. She posts awful pictures of her dad online, and has done the same to her mom. We are supposed to accept the outrageous idea that she "helped" the missionary by reintroducing him to pot, recording his heartfelt comments about his life, and then sending awful pictures and personal thoughts to his parents--somehow she was so brilliant in doing that knowing that the parents would forgive him and want him to come home. Charlie babbles on through his hacking about this, so it must be so.

And let's talk about this missionary, Thomas. He's a white Christian, of course. The movie is "brave" for crapping on Christians, but not brave enough to make the character a black Baptist, or a soul-searching re-incarnationist, or heaven forbid, a Muslim. The only time Charlie gets truly passionate, beyond him going on and on how "amazing" his daughter is, is when he angrily assaults Thomas about gay sex to "gross him out" and expose his hypocrisy.

Charlie himself makes no sense. He is an enormously smart, kind, sweet person who genuinely cares about others. He truly loves his daughter with his whole heart. (One might believe he refuses to see her sociopathy because of how much he misses her, but the movie never presents that possibility). But how could a guy like that leave his family, because of "love"? He is never portrayed as selfish or bad in any other way. The movie may have done something to show his true character--beyond his demeaning of Thomas--but we don't get that. But he sure does love that 8th grade essay of his daughter!

The cheap Christian-bashing is only upstaged by the ending, when apparently Charlie reaches his end. Is his spirit pulled to heaven, even against his belief system? What's with all the lights, even on his daughter? And her sudden "Daddy" exclamation....

Of course, this "brave" movie isn't brave enough to tell us that, it just ends.

What I find so absolutely true is that if you have a movie with some good acting in it, a few good speeches, some scenes to make people come to tears, and some maudlin music, people will rate it a 10, without even thinking about it.

Le Mans (1971)

Oddly enjoyable with all its flaws

[7/10 · 1 March 2023]

Grand Prix remains my benchmark for great racing movies. I understand that Steve McQueen wanted to make a big racing movie as well, and finally was able to do it with 1971's "Le Mans".

Like Grand Prix, the film immerses you in the racing environment and really makes you feel like you are there. This is likely what made some viewers claim that this "felt like a documentary". But no, it doesn't feel that way.

Also like Grand Prix, the non-racing parts of the film often don't quite work. But Le Mans takes that to an extreme. There is so little dialog in this film, that the viewer MUST listen to every tidbit to get even an idea of what the characters are about. Sometimes, important dialog is stepped on by the racing sounds. I think if you took every piece of dialog and spliced them together, you would have about 5 minutes of screen time.

These aspects are the worst parts of the film. We never really learn too much what these characters are about.

Steve McQueen plays a driver, Michael Delaney, who feels partially responsible, so it seems, for a crash that killed a fellow driver in a previous race. There is an interesting scene at the start of the film where he revisits the site of the crash, and takes notice of the shiny new replacement steel fencing that replaces what had been destroyed.

The dead driver's wife, Lisa, continues to come to the races. She is never without a nervous, sad expression. In one of the few dialog scenes, Delaney asks her why she keeps coming. "For myself", she says.

The film is full of sequences of terse dialog and long stares, telling the view virtually nothing as to what is going on with the characters. We are aware of a competition between Delaney and the Ferrari driver, but the two characters only have a brief scene or two together. We also don't understand little things like, Delaney's two fingered salute at the end, and his opponent's knowing smile about it. What did I miss? Any viewer would ask.

There are a lot of long stares between Delaney and Lisa, but what do they mean? Is she trying to work out any feelings of blame she has for him, is she falling for him? Or is it simply that she worries about another human being for the enormous chances they are taking, and trying to understand why anyone would race in the first place, as it resulted in the death of her husband....we can only guess at her motivations, which make little sense.

But the movie is all about the racing, and a great racing movie it is. Fantastic cinematography. The sound. You can almost smell the gas and the burnt rubber, and feel the exhausted, rain-soaked weariness of the drivers. A couple of shots are shocking in their effects, I found myself almost pulling back from the screen. The cars shudder like animals straining to pull ahead and win.

You are down in the pits with these guys, right there with them as they frantically repair a suspension issue, or deal with wheels and fuel. The dank, dreary, dimly lit pit rooms add realistic, grungy austerity to the atmosphere. The cars seem claustrophobic, beautiful in their design, and almost violent in their incredible, shrieking sounds.

On balance, watching the spectators go about waking up the day the race starts (people obviously came a day early to get a good place to set up), watching THEM watch the race, or amuse themselves during downtimes at the neighboring park add to the total feel of authenticity, and tone of the film. The camera work, even here, is fantastic.

Small, time capsule moments such as when Delaney is on a break from driving, walking to his trailer, and suddenly he turns a corner and there is a super rare Matra street car parked on the lawn, next to a ultra futuristic Matra field building. The very idea of cars, of wild shapes, sounds and colors, permeates this film.

The only issue I have with the racing scenes is in understanding the strategy and execution in the final moments of the face. Not going to spoil it for you, but difficult to understand what is going on. I have read other accounts of what happened, but I found those unsupportable by just looking at the film.

All said, if you enjoy quality racing movies, don't miss this one.

Home Movie: The Princess Bride (2020)

Imagine your friends getting drunk and putting on a show

[1/10 · 10 February 2023]

Absolute garbage.

Mostly grade B celebs don home made outfits and recite lines from a really great movie. Then said celebs vote 10 stars on the outcome, which apparently was shot on a cell phone.

You might think it would be cute as a little sketch, but believe me, it gets bad after about 30 seconds. I don't know what this is trying to be, some sort of message that you can have fun and "put on a show!" during a fauxdemic? Well, if you wondered what that would be like, here's your show.

Stream the real movie and enjoy. This isn't fun as a salute, a parody, or anything else. Completely unwatchable.

Runaway Train (I) (1985)

A truly outstanding film

[9/10 · 1 February 2023]

I saw this when it came out, and all these years later, I watched it again. It is still just as powerful.

Full of rich metaphors, and a true allegory about the prisons we build around ourselves. Outstanding acting by Voight and also Roberts, but Voight steals the whole movie.

It doesn't make a 10 solely for the preposterous scenes in the train control room, complete with bad acting and humor that doesn't fit the movie one bit. Truly awful scenes. One could have removed all those scenes and not affected the narrative one bit.

Laugh those scenes off and enjoy one of the best movies of the 1980s.

Family (1976–1980)

Bottom of the barrel television of the late 70s

[2/10 · 26 January 2023]

The mid and late 70s were a morbid time. Gone was the great music of the 60s and early 70s, replaced with disco, bad R and B, and Barry Manilow. Cars were boring and downsized. We went from the brightness and color of the 60s to the "earth tones" and blandness of this period.

Entertainment was just as bleak. "Dramedy" shows popped up everywhere. I don't know if this one counts as a dramedy, because all that is typically in the episodes is obnoxious high drama and depressed people--no comedy whatsoever.

First, let's take the parents. These two are played by James Broderick and Sada Thompson. Broderick was only 49 when he started this show, and looks 70. He has a constant hunch and looks like life is never through beating him down. You keep thinking he is going to fall over. I don't know if the viewer was ever able to actually see his eyes.

Thompson is an actress who I had never seen in anything before or since. She has a perennial look on her face--a mixture of disdain, worry, and disappointment. Her beady eyes are like olives floating in a face of milk. It somehow meshes well with her husband's consistent look of frustration and despair. Who would want these parents? And why would we want to be involved with their grotesque little "Family" every week?

They live in sunny Pasadena, but you wouldn't know that, as everything is dull and brown in color and the atmosphere is consistently unpleasant. I don't know if I ever saw anyone having fun in this show.

What never works is we are supposed to believe these parents have a daughter as old as Meredith Baxter Birney, AND as young as little "Buddy". They look like grandparents. In one episode, the mother gets pregnant. At 55.

All the kids are losers. Birney is a divorcee with a kid, always trying to palm the kid off on others. She has relationship issues, of course. She looks like she should be Buddy's mom. That reveal would have made, at least, an interesting episode.

Then there is the son, Willie, played by Gary Frank. As you have never heard of this actor, then it is logical that he is part of this cast. Willie likes to shoot film, but the viewer is never sure why. Is he a writer? Cinematographer? Film director? He does seem to do a lot of talking, sulking, and being a complete nebbish rather than actually working. And he is as boring as the family home interior decor.

And lastly, that 70s/early 80s staple Kristy McNichol. McNichol had a brother in the business as well, who looked just like her, which was weird. Buddy is a preteen/teen who is, like the rest of the family, consistently upset about something. Anything. She can also be a smart mouth. Her character is like that because no one ever punished her for being an insufferable fool.

The younger cast does the "cute fast talking" bit that is always part of shows like this. No one talks that way, but they do and we are supposed to think it's fun. The truly insufferable Quinn Cummings floats in and out of the series, just as you thought it couldn't get any worse.

Lots of sex oriented episodes....such as, Buddy trying to decide about whether she should get laid and lose her virginity. Who cares? McNichol would go on to make other odd films where a young girl's virginity is a major plot point, such as "Little Darlings", with Tatum O'Neal, who in real life had long ago lost her virginity and was abused by nutty parents. Even worse than the parents in this show. If I remember correctly, Quinn Cummings tries to get laid by Willie. Not kidding.

Viewers may enjoy the unintentionally hilarious episode when the Sada character discovers she is pregnant. The thought of her and Broderick having sex put me off of food for at least a few days.

Casino Royale (1967)

Bookend Viewings: 1967 and 2022

[3/10 · 12 January 2023]

I saw this in the theater as a young boy with my parents. Coming off seeing my first Bond film in the theaters, "You Only Live Twice", I was quite excited to see another Bond film. My dad had his suspicions of course, and warned me that this was a little "different". An extreme understatement to say the least.

I can remember being dumbfounded. A little kid can appreciate "You Only Live Twice" or "Goldfinger" even if he is not yet at the age to understand all the plot details. As they years passed after that initial viewing of "Casino Royale" , all I could ever recall was the flying saucer, Woody Allen as the bad guy, everyone is James Bond, the theme song, and the ending, which I considered to be extremely slapdash, confusing, and depressing.

55 years later, I finally sat down and watched the movie.

I now remember why I forgot so much. Because it truly is bad.

You will never, ever, and I mean, EVER, see a movie with so much money thrown at the screen, but with so little genuine entertainment value. It's as if they were TRYING to make a bad movie. And not a good bad movie either. There are so many striking visuals that you actually start getting fatigued by it all. There is no letup. There are multiple plots going on, and everything ends up going very badly at then end at the Casino Royale.

Every pretty girl in England must have signed onto this picture...it's a wave of bodies hurtling every few minutes at the camera, in any way the non-plot can possibly accommodate .

There is a bizarre construct throughout where some parts of the movie drag on, and some scenes end quite abruptly for no reason.

Example....for reasons too stupid to go into, the deceased "M's" relatives conspire to sully Bond's (the "real" Bond in the movie, played by David Niven) reputation by attempted seductions and other foolishness in Scotland. Deborah Kerr, for some odd reason, has a relatively large role in the film, playing a Scottish relative leading the conspiracy, but falls for Bond and cannot go through with the plan of either ruining his reputation or, failing that, killing him. She runs off to be a nun. This is the closest the film gets to being cute or funny. But this episode is almost a movie in itself and drags on forever. By contrast, there is another portion of the film where a professional Baccarat player and author Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers) is brought in to take down "Le Chiffre", a character played by Orson Wells, who has been using SMERSH's money to finance his gambling. The first part of this episode is the only part of the movie that is lively and not overdone, at least at first. Sellers is amusing as one of many 007s (all the agents have become 007s to "confuse" the opposition), plays dress up with his partner in the caper Vesper Lynd (Ursula Andress), and at times seems like he might be part of the inspiration for Mike Meyer's Austin Powers character. After beating Le Chiffre at the Casino, Lynd is kidnapped by Le Chiffre's henchman. Tremble goes to give chase in a race car that amusingly is just sitting there. However, the film jump cuts to Sellers in a room being tortured by Le Chiffre. Then the scene goes into a bizarre LSD type hallucination. Out of nowhere, Lynd shoots and kills Tremble. Did she really? We never see him again. Just as abrupt, Le Chiffre is killed, by an assassin reaching through the very TV screen from which he is being observed. I guess that is supposed to be funny. The execution of Tremble and Le Chiffre's death all happen in about 10 seconds. Then they are never mentioned again. The viewer is yanked off to some other bizarre set.

By the end of the film, any semblance to a plot goes out the window, in a "screwball' scene back at the Casino, involving most of the rest of the cast. Plus, the second cameo by William Holden, George Raft shows up for literally a few seconds and shoots himself, cowboys on horseback, indians with automatic bows and arrows, barking seals, a flying roulette wheel and Jimmy Bond (Woody Allen), the true bad guy in the movie, burping himself towards a nuclear explosion due to the special pill he swallowed, whereupon something like the 130th hiccup will result in him exploding.

I almost threw in the towel when the indians started doing a tomahawk dance, but then Jimmy Bond blows up, killing everyone. The biggest truncation of the film then begins with the singing narrator showing the various Bonds in heaven playing harps, and little Jimmy Bond then descending to "someplace very hot". Credits then roll.

So much work went into this movie. The art design, lighting, staging. I was exhausted watching it. After a while, unfortunately, it just became white noise. It is unbelievable that so much work by so many people could turn out something as awful as this.

Turns out, I was right as a kid. Just forget about everything you saw, and move on.

Straight Time (1978)

A Very Good, Sad, Frustrating and Accurate Character Study

[7/10 · 8 December 2022]

I hadn't seen this movie until a few months ago, and watched in a number of times since. While it has the look and feel of the 70s, its observations are timeless. While one might have the impression that it's a prison movie, it is not. It is a getting out of prison and surviving movie.

Dustin Hoffman plays Max Dembo, a two-bit crook who is just got out of prison at the start of the film. He has to report to his parole officer, find a place to live, and get a job in order to earn the officer's respect. The officer is a jerk played well by M. Emmet Walsh. The two don't see eye to eye, but Hoffman promises that he will do the right thing.

Dembo meets a young woman at an employment agency, and manages to get a job with her help. He also gets the girl, who is sweet and giving, has her own place, and holds promise to be a great partner. We find ourselves rooting for Dembo to turn his life around.

A careless and lousy act by his parole officer launches Dembo into a trajectory of anger and crime. He goes underground, and back into a life of pure thieving, which he attempts to hide from his girlfriend. Then, the movie goes to a place that few movies are willing to go with the lead character. As time goes on, we see the facade he puts on get stripped away to reveal an absolutely repellant person. There's a reason Dembo has been in and out of jail since a kid, and it's not the cops, or parole officers, or employers. He's a sociopath.

One of his friends is, jerry, is played by Harry Dean Stanton. Max continuously pushes Jerry to join him in his criminal activities. One memorable scene involves Jerry, Max, and Jerry's wife. His wife is sweet as can be, and they are all enjoying lunch in their backyard alongside a pretty pool. This is what one would consider a nice situation; nice wife, cute house, enjoying hamburgers and beer. But as soon as his wife leaves the table, Jerry moans to Max, "Get me out of here!". This is the frustrating mentality of these people.

Max carelessly and callously causes a number of people to get killed and injured. He doesn't care. Although he has some feelings for his girlfriend, he drives off to, supposedly, protect her. We, as an audience, have to process what a lot of people in the real world realize...that we had hoped for good things to happen to someone, and for their situation to improve, and we find out they are the worst trash imaginable.

Amazing film, going to a place that filmmakers rarely go to with their characters--making us care about them, and then having us realize that we have been duped.

Doctor Zhivago (1965)

For once, I agree with the film's summary rating

[8/10 · 24 November 2022]

As much as I love cinema, it comes as a shock to me that I never sat down and watched this film. I was very young when it came out, my parents saw it and quite liked it, and I remember them buying the stereo record soundtrack, with details of the film and pictures of the cast, and reading it in detail. Still, the thought of sitting down and watching the whole movie, of what appeared to be cold, dark, alien Russia, was of no interest to me. However, I finally watched it a half century plus since it came out. I also read both current and contemporary critical ratings of the film, and could not be in greater disagreement with most of them.

This is a great movie. It is long. It is memorable. But it is neither a soap opera nor foolish. It is not a documentary of Russia in WW1 and then going communist. It is a life and love story against a backdrop of these things. Critics should accept what a movie is about, rather than what they wish it were about.

A movie like this, like all epics, gets a chance to show detail and immerse you in the environment. I never felt so chilled, and so bothered by the wind--all in my head--as during watching this film. In that way, actually feeling like you were there, has only been as realized for me in one other film, "The Last Picture Show", where the feel of chill and desolation in that movie is pervasive.

All performances are great, don't let the idiots tell you otherwise. I read that many felt the Sharif was wrong, or expressionless. Sorry, but that is his character. He is trying to be a professional physician, and keep the appropriate facade in the face of changes that are absolutely surreal. Christie possesses the kind of visual magnetism that makes the infatuation of Zhivago plausible. Rod Steiger, who is guilty of preposterous performances in other films, hits the keys of his performance so perfectly you never disbelieve him. Lesser actors would have just made him the perverted rapist that he is, but nothing more to add to the dynamics of his personality. Courtney as high-minded, full of foolishness, and in the end, blinded by frustration and I believe a touch of madness.

Another thing I found splendid about this film was how it illuminated how evil, twisted, and preposterous the scheme of communism truly is. In this film, and of course in history, all the wealth of the rich is removed, and redistributed. This fixes nothing. What it does allow for, in its BS concepts that all men are the same and are all "comrades", is that you don't rise due to merit, you rise because of who you know. The movie time and again shows complete idiots in charge of things...the "managers" of the old Zhivago house who have converted into mass housing for the jealous poor who hate Zhivago and his family. They couldn't be more useless. The leaders of various combat units. The guy who tells people on the disgusting train about the "features" of the accommodations. Yes, in communist countries, the cream never does rise to the top. The working class does whatever is told, just for the benefit of the scraps and their survival. Lara at one point states something like "it's a horrible time to be alive"....and nothing is closer to the truth than that.

Again, not documentary or a wartime story, but its concepts and truths are right there.

The production, of course, top notch. Watch it, take a break or two and soak it all up. It is a special kind of movie, back when they made such a thing.

Sometimes a Great Notion (1971)

Mixed bag, but not bad!

[6/10 · 5 October 2022]

I had some pre-conceived "notions" of this film, under the impression it was a real atmospheric gem like "The Last Picture Show", released around the same time. Sadly, it is not on that level. My grade school teacher lived, at the time, where it was filmed as well. I never got around to seeing it until last night.

Set in the then-present day, the film concerns an independent logging family business and their internal and external conflicts.

Henry Fonda plays the father Henry Stamper, sons Hank, Leland and Joe Ben are played by Paul Newman, Michael Sarrazin and Richard Jaeckel. Lee Remick plays Newman's wife Viv.

Leland arrives back home after a disastrous set of circumstances, and joins the logging effort. The family is beset upon by almost the entire town, who are all on strike against the big logging company they work for. For some odd reason, they expect the Stampers to stand along with them and stop production, even though they are not in any union.

So, the townsfolk sabotage and burn the Stampers equipment, cause a fight at a picnic, cut off the Stampers credit, etc.

Internal strife includes a look at Viv's unhappiness living there (the whole family lives in one big house), Leland's self-reflection, Hank's attempt to move the company forward, etc.

The great parts of the movie really have to do with the logging action. These scenes are really shot well. From Leland's first days struggling with the laborious and dangerous tasks, and then becoming good at the job, to the details in showing the job, which appears exhausting, exciting, and risky all at the same time. The scenery is gorgeous. The grittiness of that life is totally realistic. The famous scene with Joe Ben caught in a horrific situation is so realistic, frightening and sad, it goes down in history as one of the best scenes in cinema.

The best is slightly offset by the worst. With the exception of Joe Ben and his family, there is not one likable character. Leland, prior to his arrival, is smoking dope and blows up the building he is in, and to escape responsibility, runs away to hide out with the family. He ends up having an affair with his brother's wife (hinted strongly at in the movie, a cut scene actually shows the affair). Hank doesn't appreciate his wife, and worse, had an affair with his own step mother before she died.

The most obnoxious character is Fonda's Henry. Perhaps I am unfairly critical here as I have such a strong dislike for Fonda, as he is, in real life, a God-awful person. Here, he acts like a younger version of the character he played in "On Golden Pond" over a decade later, who was also a goofball. Henry parades around with his stupid arm cast, arm sticking straight out, which he occasionally whacks people with. He loves to bang on doors with a stick to wake people up, and declaring, "Eating, working, screwing sleeping....that's all there is Love" to Viv. The Viv character is there simply to throw a female in to wash clothes and cook, and complain about life.

I did enjoy Henry's last scene, if only to serve the purpose that I didn't have to hear him yak anymore.

The ending is rather fun, an in-your-face to the townspeople/union members. Frankly however, I never understood this conflict. Workers usually get mad at members of their union deciding not to strike and going into work, screwing up their bargaining power. But the Stampers have always been independent. Why would their small output mean anything to anyone? This would be the equivalent of a supermarket chain going on strike for more pay, and trying to burn down the building of a local butcher who stays open. Does that make sense?

An interesting film, some great moments, but not a great film. Mild recommendation here.

The Munsters (2022)

Amateur hour with one or two grins

[3/10 · 30 September 2022]

To start out with, I can't stand Zombie's movies. I have tried to give a number of them a chance, but they never work. But even the worst of them, the absolute vomit-fest that is "The Devil's Rejects"--which appeals only to true morons--had flashes of good filmmaking within it. There were even a few parts that I liked--the very beginning and the very end. But I tried to clear all of that out of my head to give this film a chance.

I grew up with the Munsters. I absolutely loved Herman and Grandpa, and the dialogs between them. There was charm in that old show. And part of that charm was the timing and comedic talent of the stars, including--surprisingly--that of Yvonne De Carlo. What helped the whole thing along was the brilliant talent of producers Joe Connelly and Bob Mosher, who knew how to tell stories with their backgrounds of creating and writing "Leave it to Beaver" and prior radio work for decades. And they selected actors that they knew could pull it off.

None of these wonderful dynamics are in play here. This is a colorful, but lackluster affair that just always seems like things are undercooked. At times, it reminds me of older cheesy Saturday morning live action TV shows for kids. The actors involved just don't have the chops to pull this off, and the direction is dull. The story in uninvolving. The only actor that feels like he is giving an actual performance is the individual playing the Grandpa role. Somehow he found the place in between making the character is own and tipping his hat to the old show. The others do not. Moon Zombie tries to imitate De Carlo, but she is really only 1/2 way there. Herman is the real problem. The original character is warm, funny, affectionate to his family, often behaves as a child, loses his temper, and is afraid of a lot of things! Fred Gwynne pulled all that off perfectly, and hilariously. This Herman likes to flail around and moves his arms, like someone in junior high trying to do an impression of him. It stalls the whole show, not that there is much to stall here.

In the original, the entire family wasn't scared of other people. They just thought others outside were a little homely. The laughs also came from people's reactions to the Munsters; some treated them with absolutely no considerations for their looks, some flipped out. You never knew. The kids that played with Eddie didn't have a problem with how he looked, and thought the house was cool--not a bad nod to how little kids don't have preformed ideas of prejudice.

Some of the sets in this new version are not bad at all, but they seem to be lit in a music video fashion--so it made the feel less of a feature film and gave it, for lack of a better word, a sort of tinny feel. There is no richness in the environments at all.

In summary, poor to only fair acting for the most part, indifferent direction, no story, and nothing interesting going on. Fans of the original series won't find much here, and I can't imagine younger audiences finding anything to enjoy either. You've got to have a crew like those that put together the Addams Family movies. This crew is many levels below that competency.

Ford v Ferrari (2019)

Good, not great film

[7/10 · 22 September 2022]

I finally saw this, indeed a few years after it came out.

I have always been a Shelby fan, and a GT40 nut. This film takes place, for me, during the best times for both racing and production cars. It's an enjoyable film, with a lot of inaccuracies and events completely manufactured for entertainment sake. So, in other words, a Hollywood film.

What bothers me most is the casting of Matt Damon as Shelby. Shelby was a tough, leathery, crinkly, crusty guy that didn't mind getting greasy and dirty to get the job done. He was a man's man. When we see Damon with his clean, smooth face and actor looks, put on a cowboy hat and strut on out, it is laughable. He didn't even try. It's Damon with a put on accent, and for me, is quite a distraction.

Bale actually tries to look the part, captures facial expressions, and tries to create a character and melt into his part. For me it works, although I doubt the real Miles was as much of a hot head.

Some of the historical liberties are taken a bit too far. I doubt Shelby ever got into a fist fight with the guy he is hanging everything on to be his star driver...taking a risk of him breaking a hand, back, or other injury. I could go on.

The scenes with Miles' wife are about 3 too many, and the part of her in the car speeding to scare Miles into being honest with her is preposterous. It always bothers me when there is lazy writing involved having characters get into an argument without reason and overdoing it.

That said, there is some great racing footage and the action keeps the movie going. However, there is just something about the film that is odd. It just feels, just empty. We never feel like we are in a real place with real racing--there is little atmosphere at the racing locations--and so much just doesn't seem real.

These considerations left me a bit cold, and keep this from being a memorably movie.

Shinbone Alley (1970)

One of the worst films I have ever seen

[2/10 · 13 September 2022]

I saw this when I was 10 years old. With my two older sisters, dropped off for a matinee. It was definitely marketed to kids. We were thinking it was going to be something like the Aristocats.

It is garish, cheaply done, bizarre (not in a good way) and stifling. We had to sit through it as our mom was out shopping after she dropped us off. It was an effort to sit through.

Last year I watched it again out of curiosity...so much of what you didn't get as a kid you re-look at as an adult and have a different perspective, and you end up really liking it. This film? Nope, it was even worse than I remember it.