It's easy to overlook a kid acting like a kid, but Larry does a convincing job of being ecstatic over his new pets, and heartbroken yet still articulate as his dad explains the facts of life (of pets) to him. Fortunately it's a happy ending, with a hilarious finale with Buddy and Sally, but you'll still cry along with Larry.
Reviews
72 Reviews
The Forever Prisoner
(2021)
"Temporary discomfort"
6 February 2022
The facts of this have been presented elsewhere so it's not breaking news, but is still a compelling two hour view. One fact however, which might have been overly simplified, was fascinating. The "expert" psychologist who failed to understand that torture is about manipulation, not an easy path to truth, was himself so easily manipulated. When repeatedly told the hypothetical "what if there's another 9/11 and you didn't do all you could?" he went on the warpath, willing to do anything heinous. It says alot about him, not doing any due diligence or honest evaluation of his work which failed compared to normal relationship-building techniques. The initial methods of interrogation were bad enough, and what any normal person would consider torture...the "enhanced" interrogation was of course torture. Or what the psychologist called "temporary discomfort." Like Rumsfeld comparing his not sitting at his desk to prisoners being made to stand. They needed to minimize and dismiss torture because of their guilt. They knew it was indefensible for any reason, even national security, and was just a form of revenge.
"Night has a 1000 eyes" adaption?
11 February 2019
While uncredited, the main thrust of the episode seems to have been inspired by "Night has a 1000 eyes"(1948) starring Edward G. Robinson as the troubled psychic. It's a very moving noir horror film based on a Cornell Woolrich novel. The main character is pitted against a normally motivated murderer (not a random killing psychic psycho), but strip out the levity and you're left with the same results. Seek it out.
The novel and film were preceded by the similar novel and film "The Clairvoyant" (1935).
The Mantrap
(1943)
great Sherlock Holmes pastiche
18 February 2012
really a hidden gem.
While main character Humphrey Quilp was only a pupil of Holmes, the plotting and dialog are pure Holmes/Conan Doyle. Pretty funny and clever script by Curt Siodmak. Jam packed with dialog and scenes, like a 90 minute mystery condensed into a 60 minute time slot. As such, it's never dull and keeps your attention. The modern police humor him and his "prehistoric" methods (such as noticing subtle yet simple illogical discrepancies), while he humors their total blindness to the details. The actual humor in the film is never broad but usually circumstantial- people getting annoyed with each other, or Quilp's friend (a Watson stand-in) who worries about his health and pulls cigarettes or drinks out of Quilp's hand when he isn't aware. Interestingly, Quilp drives (and advocates) an electric car. Certainly ahead of his time.
Don't want to say more and spoil your experience.
While main character Humphrey Quilp was only a pupil of Holmes, the plotting and dialog are pure Holmes/Conan Doyle. Pretty funny and clever script by Curt Siodmak. Jam packed with dialog and scenes, like a 90 minute mystery condensed into a 60 minute time slot. As such, it's never dull and keeps your attention. The modern police humor him and his "prehistoric" methods (such as noticing subtle yet simple illogical discrepancies), while he humors their total blindness to the details. The actual humor in the film is never broad but usually circumstantial- people getting annoyed with each other, or Quilp's friend (a Watson stand-in) who worries about his health and pulls cigarettes or drinks out of Quilp's hand when he isn't aware. Interestingly, Quilp drives (and advocates) an electric car. Certainly ahead of his time.
Don't want to say more and spoil your experience.
Almost a Gentleman
(1939)
compelling "bitter hero" story
13 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Young lawyer Dan Preston (James Ellison) holds a bitter grudge against the affluent family which prevented his marriage with their daughter because he didn't meet their standards. He adopts a dog they were going to have killed, feeling a kinship to it, and is adversarial to the family whenever he gets the chance. His bitterness is encouraged by the son who insists both class and breeding are all that matter. He visits the family and in an awkward moment realizes his life is passing him by. Though he starts a promising romance, he still cant let go of his anger.
Two events take place - a murder and kidnapping, which allows Dan to both defend his dog as well as justify his existence and ideals. While the kidnapping is a contrived plot device, it provides the shared goal for two antagonists to make amends.
It is not often you see an embittered character study on this scale - Bright Leaf, In A Lonely Place, and Ben-Hur come to mind. Actor James Ellison usually starred in Westerns (and one of the first werewolf movies, "Undying Monster"), but here plays a contemporary character, and is quite good. Ace the dog is protectively vicious - that is, he isn't playing cute, so he matches the emotional grimness of the main character.
Two events take place - a murder and kidnapping, which allows Dan to both defend his dog as well as justify his existence and ideals. While the kidnapping is a contrived plot device, it provides the shared goal for two antagonists to make amends.
It is not often you see an embittered character study on this scale - Bright Leaf, In A Lonely Place, and Ben-Hur come to mind. Actor James Ellison usually starred in Westerns (and one of the first werewolf movies, "Undying Monster"), but here plays a contemporary character, and is quite good. Ace the dog is protectively vicious - that is, he isn't playing cute, so he matches the emotional grimness of the main character.
if O.Henry and Hitchcock worked together...
17 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Fascinating little tale, and emblematic of the series which appears to be O.Henry type plots with a downbeat ending. Often a good character is dragged down by helping a seemingly trust-worthy person in trouble.
In "The Glass Jungle" a detective tries to protect an altruistic, ground-breaking medical scientist who admits to killing a blackmailer. The scientist gives an odd, lengthy explanation for not feeling remorse, but readily confesses and wants to turn himself in. The detective feels the scientist is the one exception to the rule of justice, and should go free. As the story unfolds, the scientist shows symptoms of mental instability, until the end when the detective realizes he made a grave mistake. A great little story which borders on horror.
In "The Glass Jungle" a detective tries to protect an altruistic, ground-breaking medical scientist who admits to killing a blackmailer. The scientist gives an odd, lengthy explanation for not feeling remorse, but readily confesses and wants to turn himself in. The detective feels the scientist is the one exception to the rule of justice, and should go free. As the story unfolds, the scientist shows symptoms of mental instability, until the end when the detective realizes he made a grave mistake. A great little story which borders on horror.
nicely realized Bloch story
26 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Like an earlier episode, "Most Likely to Succeed," this story gives clues to its twist ending all along, so the story itself must be entertaining in it's own right. That it does by diving into the alternate reality of Beatnik culture. As usual, we get a parody of a Beat poetry performance, so the weight of the subculture must be carried by actor Brian Hutton's intense performance as the slacker/leech/philosophical musician beatnik who's indoctrinating his girlfriend into the Beat culture. You might turn on close-captions to double-check his Beat jargon. The ending is pure Robert Bloch, whom Stephen King borrowed from frequently.
Despite being synonymous with twist-ending horror stories, there are surprisingly few of Robert Bloch's own original stories in the series. The final season saw two nice adaptations, making me wish Hitch had presented more.
Despite being synonymous with twist-ending horror stories, there are surprisingly few of Robert Bloch's own original stories in the series. The final season saw two nice adaptations, making me wish Hitch had presented more.
full of tension
26 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Any regular viewer of the series will always be looking for the twist, and in this regard, the episode's plot follows one's earliest predictions. However, this doesn't detract from the oddly tense story. Top of the Class college buddy Dave, now down-and out, visits rich friend Stanley who does shady deals. Stanley appears to mean well but really wants to humiliate Dave. Our opinion of Stanley lowers as he treats his own wife like property. While the wife's emotions are on the surface, Dave doesn't show anything. Because of his blank look and the one-shots isolating the actors, what's unsaid comes across even more palpably, like watching a bomb tick. Deliciously tense. Unnecessary, though perhaps intentionally humorous, is the climactic patriotic music which signifies the act of betrayal here was justified rather than cowardly.
Wow - beautiful art direction; pretty good mystery
11 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Like other Poirot (Suchet) productions, this has a childhood theme at the beginning, but this time the accompanying intense creepy music and quick editing make sense because it's a Halloween party. It's especially effective as the children engage in an old party ritual which is more alien than nostalgic. A particularly shocking murder occurs (one not seen elsewhere in the series). Poirot's author friend (Zoe Wanamaker) is there, possibly just as contrivance to get Poirot into the picture, because after she calls him to investigate, she's sick in bed. Poirot is in most of the movie, unlike some of the later movie-episodes where he mainly observes.
One is struck immediately by the art direction which never lets up - rich colors, lighting, and gardens, interesting camera angles, fish-eye close ups. But rather than being able to savor this, the movie moves very swiftly, and both the artiness and the plot flow over you without lingering for emphasis. A small example, you notice Poirot rearranging (in his obsessive manner) a few items on the family lawyer's desk. As it's not key to solving the crime (as in another episode), it could have been played up for slight humorous effect but the scene runs past it.
The mystery itself is somewhat typical of Poirot mysteries, which isn't a bad thing - family infighting, contested inheritance, hidden identities, along with Poirot's grammar problems, being insulted, etc. In his climactic expose, Poirot reveals more shocking skeletons-in-closets than usual, and so completely out of left field that the audience shouldn't waste time trying to solve this mystery, just enjoy the show. For that reason, as well as the fast pace, the plot isn't too memorable. And while the self-consciously beautiful cinematography can be distracting, perhaps beauty was emphasized because it's the murderer's main motivation.
Critique aside, I can see this becoming one of the more highly regarded of the later Poirot episodes. 2 thumbs up.
One is struck immediately by the art direction which never lets up - rich colors, lighting, and gardens, interesting camera angles, fish-eye close ups. But rather than being able to savor this, the movie moves very swiftly, and both the artiness and the plot flow over you without lingering for emphasis. A small example, you notice Poirot rearranging (in his obsessive manner) a few items on the family lawyer's desk. As it's not key to solving the crime (as in another episode), it could have been played up for slight humorous effect but the scene runs past it.
The mystery itself is somewhat typical of Poirot mysteries, which isn't a bad thing - family infighting, contested inheritance, hidden identities, along with Poirot's grammar problems, being insulted, etc. In his climactic expose, Poirot reveals more shocking skeletons-in-closets than usual, and so completely out of left field that the audience shouldn't waste time trying to solve this mystery, just enjoy the show. For that reason, as well as the fast pace, the plot isn't too memorable. And while the self-consciously beautiful cinematography can be distracting, perhaps beauty was emphasized because it's the murderer's main motivation.
Critique aside, I can see this becoming one of the more highly regarded of the later Poirot episodes. 2 thumbs up.
Crack in the World
(1965)
interesting subtext in "Crack in the World"
23 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The back story in CRACK IN THE WORLD is a bland love triangle when taken at face value. But there appears to be several elements of Greek Drama, Mythology, and Freudian symbolism working together throughout the film. This doesn't make it a better movie, but it's interesting to consider.
Dana Andrews evokes Prometheus bringing fire to mankind; in a speech, he states his goal as "man's age-old dream to to get limitless energy." Because of his ill health, Dana imprudently rushes his plan along. The success would bring immortality to his name. He would also like a sense of immortality through having children. Unlike Prometheus he will not succeed in the way he wants.
He feels ambiguously towards his wife because he is older, is in ill health, and seemingly stole her from a younger, more age-appropriate colleague. An Unnatural relationship like this in Greek Drama brings about major consequences to society until the Natural Order is corrected.
Dana's plan to get energy is disputed by the jilted young colleague who predicts disaster and thus plays the part of a mythological oracle. Dana cheats him again by sending him off and somewhat minimizing the colleague's criticism to authorities.
Freudian symbolism reinforces the Unnaturalness of the relationship. Dana's health issue is a cancerous hand, an ill limb which easily translates as a Freudian phallic symbol indicating a lack of potency. The symbolism continues in a discussion about the ground drilling between a government official and Dana's wife. After looking on at a phallic rocket pointing into (Mother) Earth, the Official reminds her that they haven't been able "to gain an inch in weeks." She looks unusually uncomfortable as if the comment has another meaning. Dana launches the missile which causes the disaster of the film title and fulfills the prediction of the young colleague/oracle. Confronted with his mistake, Dana begins to wear large black sunglasses. While this might be to avoid eye contact from feeling ashamed, it also suggests Oedipus who blinded himself after realizing his fate was fulfilled.
The technical solution to stop the crack is doomed to failure because it wouldn't restore the Natural Order. It is the unexpected turn of events which resolve the matter. The crack circles back to it's source (ie Dana Andrews), kills him and creates a new moon. This does two things: It allows Dana to sacrifice himself so his wife and young colleague can reunite and restore the Natural Order. A squirrel digs himself out of the rubble to reinforce this notion. It also immortalizes Dana on two levels: a Freudian offspring from the missile into the earth, and a Mythological constellation attesting to his folly.
Dana Andrews evokes Prometheus bringing fire to mankind; in a speech, he states his goal as "man's age-old dream to to get limitless energy." Because of his ill health, Dana imprudently rushes his plan along. The success would bring immortality to his name. He would also like a sense of immortality through having children. Unlike Prometheus he will not succeed in the way he wants.
He feels ambiguously towards his wife because he is older, is in ill health, and seemingly stole her from a younger, more age-appropriate colleague. An Unnatural relationship like this in Greek Drama brings about major consequences to society until the Natural Order is corrected.
Dana's plan to get energy is disputed by the jilted young colleague who predicts disaster and thus plays the part of a mythological oracle. Dana cheats him again by sending him off and somewhat minimizing the colleague's criticism to authorities.
Freudian symbolism reinforces the Unnaturalness of the relationship. Dana's health issue is a cancerous hand, an ill limb which easily translates as a Freudian phallic symbol indicating a lack of potency. The symbolism continues in a discussion about the ground drilling between a government official and Dana's wife. After looking on at a phallic rocket pointing into (Mother) Earth, the Official reminds her that they haven't been able "to gain an inch in weeks." She looks unusually uncomfortable as if the comment has another meaning. Dana launches the missile which causes the disaster of the film title and fulfills the prediction of the young colleague/oracle. Confronted with his mistake, Dana begins to wear large black sunglasses. While this might be to avoid eye contact from feeling ashamed, it also suggests Oedipus who blinded himself after realizing his fate was fulfilled.
The technical solution to stop the crack is doomed to failure because it wouldn't restore the Natural Order. It is the unexpected turn of events which resolve the matter. The crack circles back to it's source (ie Dana Andrews), kills him and creates a new moon. This does two things: It allows Dana to sacrifice himself so his wife and young colleague can reunite and restore the Natural Order. A squirrel digs himself out of the rubble to reinforce this notion. It also immortalizes Dana on two levels: a Freudian offspring from the missile into the earth, and a Mythological constellation attesting to his folly.
Porky's Bear Facts
(1941)
role model for Tom Waits?
2 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
an unremarkable and harmless toon, though one of my child/teenhood favorites since it was part of the local TV channel's afterschool repertoire. The story of two neighbors - a lackadaisical hillbilly bear who plucks a guitar and sings with a whiskey voice, and orderly middle class Porky Pig. Come winter, the bear is starving and Porky must feed him because his work ethic also comes with a social conscience. The bear decides to turn over a new leaf, but like the leopard that can't changes it's spots, he goes back to his lazy ways, singing his favorite song, "Working can wait/ this is paradise having no work to do/ and taking it easy too/ Working can wait."
There's not much excitement since it's about inner conflicts, but it's still amusing to see both sides, and the song is perfect. A more humorous take on the lazy-animal-not-preparing-for-winter, also with a musical number (though more absurd), was made a year later in "Daffy's Southern Exposure."
There's not much excitement since it's about inner conflicts, but it's still amusing to see both sides, and the song is perfect. A more humorous take on the lazy-animal-not-preparing-for-winter, also with a musical number (though more absurd), was made a year later in "Daffy's Southern Exposure."
Starts off well but... And no Edward G. Robinson
31 January 2009
Starts off well with Tony Franciosa and Susan Saint James interviewing and following a young successful businessman who keeps a certain emotional distance from Tony. To gain some insight on his subject, Tony chips away at the man's past, then the plot veers into an unrelated missing persons search. When the businessman offers a reward, greedy searchers arrive. Eventually the two plots are tied together, but the diverting of attention from main characters to minor plot-driven characters kills the tension in the drama. By the finale, you don't really care how or what was resolved. On a positive note, the acting is enjoyable as usual, and the episode is another time capsule of the past.
Note: Edward G. Robinson is NOT in this episode. His son Edward G. Robinson Jr. has 2 minuscule appearances as the businessman's bartender. In the end credits, most characters are only identified by first name but Junior gets a full "Carl Rodenski."
Note: Edward G. Robinson is NOT in this episode. His son Edward G. Robinson Jr. has 2 minuscule appearances as the businessman's bartender. In the end credits, most characters are only identified by first name but Junior gets a full "Carl Rodenski."
A Cold Night's Death
(1973 TV Movie)
Why would you choose to freeze to death?
7 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
What could be so frightening and irrational that a scientist would choose to freeze to death rather than confront it? You'll find out.
While we think of scientists as being unflinching heroic seekers of truth, they can be pretty nutty people in denial of reality (it's true!). The movie is about two different types of scientists who are trying to complete some research involving monkeys in a remote freezing mountain environment. The experiment was left uncompleted by the death of a scientist who seems to have gone insane, and died freezing to death. Regardless of the fact that the audience can more-or-less figure out who the culprit is, the last 30 seconds are incredibly chilling to see. Imagine characters debating if a shark was involved in the deaths in JAWS, but only in the last minute of film you finally see a fin circling the hero. Or a ventriloquist who insists his dummy is alive, and at the end you see it move. Worth watching in the dark for the very creepy climax.
Kudos for the director's long-takes and Gil (Andromeda Strain) Melle's unsettling score.
While we think of scientists as being unflinching heroic seekers of truth, they can be pretty nutty people in denial of reality (it's true!). The movie is about two different types of scientists who are trying to complete some research involving monkeys in a remote freezing mountain environment. The experiment was left uncompleted by the death of a scientist who seems to have gone insane, and died freezing to death. Regardless of the fact that the audience can more-or-less figure out who the culprit is, the last 30 seconds are incredibly chilling to see. Imagine characters debating if a shark was involved in the deaths in JAWS, but only in the last minute of film you finally see a fin circling the hero. Or a ventriloquist who insists his dummy is alive, and at the end you see it move. Worth watching in the dark for the very creepy climax.
Kudos for the director's long-takes and Gil (Andromeda Strain) Melle's unsettling score.
King Kong
(2005)
Just because you can doesn't mean you should
18 April 2006
Any remake will inevitably be compared to it's original, though director Jackson avoids this by making his version quite different. You don't think about the original except when Jack Black's character mentions Merian Cooper and Fay Wray, or during a few key scenes (ie Kong's first appearance). Otherwise, most of the contrasts can only be summed up when the film is over. Overall, Jackson's re-visioning is successful, but this doesn't make it a successful film.
The most interesting change was making Kong more like a big protective pet for Ann Darrow (imagine a real-life version of the children's book, Clifford the Big Red Dog). However, Jackson takes it too far by the time they're ice skating in New York. Another change was the subtle if forgettable music score; obviously Jackson felt his special effects would be so convincing that the musical score needn't be so noticeable. While the effects are an improvement over the original Kong, their over-use detracted from any believability. A ridiculously distracting effect which set the tone for me was the "camera" unnaturally swooping like a jet plane from the rowboats approaching Skull Isle to the sacrifice in progress. As the really impossible happens, the effects also started to look cartoonish - when the heroes avoid the legs of the bronto stampede, Kong's fight with the Trex's, Jimmy gunning bugs off Driscoll. In a contemporary comparison, the effects in "Jurassic Park 3" were much better integrated and believable.
Another noteworthy change is the lack of any humanity shared between the cultures; the original film suggested that entertainment and religion were intermingled, and this was a commonality for the islanders and for western society. Jackson's natives are just too evil compared with the down-and-out Manhattanites. Consequently there is no mirrored action between Kong rampaging through the native village and through Manhattan.
While most complain the beginning was too long, I found that to be the most entertaining part, perhaps because it's more real than what follows. People were living on the edge in the Depression, doing almost anything to survive (Ann would rather steal an apple than sell her honor). Jack Black's weaselly Carl Denham is distinguished from the more heroic original when he mentions Merian Cooper (the real heroic director/producer whom the original Denham was based on). It's a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment to the original film, as well as a way to declare Jackson's film will be a different animal altogether. It could even suggest that the original 1933 film version is a dramatization of what "really happens" as depicted in Jackson's film.
After all the forgettable cartoonish effects, and pretensions of myth-like art (ie Hayes' soliloquy while the rowboat approaches Skull Isle), the most memorable and magical image for me was of the dignified man stooping to scrounge in a garbage can to pick out a half-eaten apple, then striding on with no loss of appearance.
The most interesting change was making Kong more like a big protective pet for Ann Darrow (imagine a real-life version of the children's book, Clifford the Big Red Dog). However, Jackson takes it too far by the time they're ice skating in New York. Another change was the subtle if forgettable music score; obviously Jackson felt his special effects would be so convincing that the musical score needn't be so noticeable. While the effects are an improvement over the original Kong, their over-use detracted from any believability. A ridiculously distracting effect which set the tone for me was the "camera" unnaturally swooping like a jet plane from the rowboats approaching Skull Isle to the sacrifice in progress. As the really impossible happens, the effects also started to look cartoonish - when the heroes avoid the legs of the bronto stampede, Kong's fight with the Trex's, Jimmy gunning bugs off Driscoll. In a contemporary comparison, the effects in "Jurassic Park 3" were much better integrated and believable.
Another noteworthy change is the lack of any humanity shared between the cultures; the original film suggested that entertainment and religion were intermingled, and this was a commonality for the islanders and for western society. Jackson's natives are just too evil compared with the down-and-out Manhattanites. Consequently there is no mirrored action between Kong rampaging through the native village and through Manhattan.
While most complain the beginning was too long, I found that to be the most entertaining part, perhaps because it's more real than what follows. People were living on the edge in the Depression, doing almost anything to survive (Ann would rather steal an apple than sell her honor). Jack Black's weaselly Carl Denham is distinguished from the more heroic original when he mentions Merian Cooper (the real heroic director/producer whom the original Denham was based on). It's a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment to the original film, as well as a way to declare Jackson's film will be a different animal altogether. It could even suggest that the original 1933 film version is a dramatization of what "really happens" as depicted in Jackson's film.
After all the forgettable cartoonish effects, and pretensions of myth-like art (ie Hayes' soliloquy while the rowboat approaches Skull Isle), the most memorable and magical image for me was of the dignified man stooping to scrounge in a garbage can to pick out a half-eaten apple, then striding on with no loss of appearance.
It All Came True
(1940)
VERY well done cross-genre comedy
8 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Noticeably very well-filmed, edited, and acted comedy-drama-romance-gangster picture. Menacing gangster Bogart, sexy wise-girl Ann Sheridan, her family and quirky peripheral characters make this situation comedy more than the sum of it's parts. Very funny, touching, unpredictable, and a cultural time-capsule. 10 thumbs up! I'd rather not spoil the movie but IMDb requires more lines...one interesting scene is the initial intimacy (the intensity is as close as we get to romance/sex) between the love interests: it's musical in nature and their only way to bond. It's not performed as yet another tiring duet but a rehearsal with mistakes. That's another example of what makes this movie refreshing and quite different from movies of then and now.
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
(2001)
Neither an effective homage nor parody
13 June 2004
Technically speaking, the film (actually it was shot with a videocamera) has most of the ingredients for a good satire: the same old music, crazy plot, bland characters, black and white image. But the script is too inane and too conscious of using cliches to be an homage or parody. The directing is also amateurish, and while some of the shots are composed well, I don't think they used the right lens to give it a feature film "look". Imagine 90 min. of MST3K host segments - okay in small doses, but not appropriate for a feature film. I'm afraid the schlock horror genre is still awaiting a worthy parody. This one doesn't cut it, especially if you think of other effective homage-satires like "Austin Powers," "Undercover Brother," "Mystery Men," or "Monty Python and the Holy Grail."
The Missing
(I) (2003)
creepy thriller, lives up to it's trailer
1 December 2003
Gut-wrenching thriller with unflinching scenes of violence (nightmare-producing), not for the squeamish. This is one of the few films to live up to it's creepy trailer. Flawless filmmaking, acting, and nice score, and though the film does seem long, the suspense and general tension never lets up. In fact, it's so overpowering that any story-cliches in the film are quite forgivable, and the political messages are obvious and quite separate from the massive entertainment-value of the movie. My only major criticism really applies to the content - Tommy Lee(excellent as usual) Jones' character tries dealing with well-known sadists when he could have dealt with their probably less dangerous south-of-the border counterparts. His reasoning is never explained so it appears non-sensical; I suppose it's a minor sacrifice of character-credibility to advance the plot.
Get Smart, Again!
(1989 TV Movie)
if you liked the show, you'll love this movie
13 September 2003
A hilarious recycling of their best jokes, gags, situations. All the actors (except for the late Ed "the Chief" Platt) are back and consistently maintain their original characters from the TV series. This is also far superior to other TV special "reunion" shows where nothing really happens except maybe flashbacks. Don't miss it!("by this much").
archetypical sci-fi flick that's still setting trends
31 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*some spoilers* One of those early sci-fi flicks full of nice touches and effects that still influence the genre today, from Star Trek to Minority Report. While the plot is about a lengthy trip to another solar system, a main complication is about a health problem that deranges one of the crew(later borrowed for classic Star Trek's "Naked Time" and more blatantly used in Trek's Next Gen "Naked Now" episode). Their view screen projects images larger-than-life (still used in movies today to look "cool"). While the ship models aren't too convincing, there's one scene when a mini-ship is docking and suddenly an astronaut waves hello from inside! It's a slightly off-kilter matte effect but a nice effort. The highlight of the film starts in the ballroom, with futuristic music and dancing, which is interrupted by an alarm (an encounter with a derelict ship). Then we watch as the astronauts investigate, their boots that light up with each slow-motion step, unknowingly performing a dance of death. It's a sequence worth watching a few times. No doubt the climax of the scene was a contemporary message about the dangers of nuclear weapons. The derelict ship also foreshadows what will happen to the crew of the ship. There's alot of good-natured humor in the film, similar to the other Russian classic "Planet of Storms." The final scene isn't too surprising, but it's better than no surprise at all (and was apparently borrowed 2 years later for the same final scene in the Italian "Planet of Vampires"). A nice little flick, which is in public domain so it's often sold by "independent distributors" on Ebay.
Deep Blue Sea
(1999)
Jawsncrantz and Alienstern are dead
12 August 2003
Put "Jaws" and "Alien" into the matter transporter in "The Fly", the result would be "Deep blue sea." Scenes and plot are lifted entirely from each. In a way, it's amazing they could do it. How did they get the sharks into a "haunted house" setting? Mutate sharks with mudskippers? Nope, they brought the "haunted house" under water. The mechanical sharks are excellent but the computer generated versions are too quick and video-game like to be entirely convincing. This is just as well, since I'd rather not see realistic dismemberments. As such, the suspense it generates leads to nervous laughs rather than rapt silence and jump-out-of-your-seat fright. Overall not as bad as some say, unless you expect something ground breaking. As a clone, it's a total success and should be an example in the dictionary under the word "derivative." As entertainment, Bugs Bunny's "Rabbitson Crusoe" cartoon blows it out of the water for laughs and scares.
Terminator1+2=3 surprisingly unimaginative retread of 1st two
17 July 2003
Little story and one too many explosion/car chase that should have killed our heroes make this movie unintentionally ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is the featherweight female terminator who never smudges her makeup, and can run 60 mph in high heels. She never seems threatening, perhaps because she's never shown killing anyone; her catty expression always accompanied with ominous music (lifted from Mr Liquid Plumber, or a whomever was the 2nd Terminator) just doesn't cut it. Some say this is a good no-brainer flick, but I suspect a full lobotomy is required to actually enjoy it.
In Cold Blood
(1967)
If Joe Buck and Ratso Rizzo had been killers...
30 June 2003
Stark, striking pseudo-documentary style, like a Fred Wiseman film, though with some odd defects: some scenes of the detective (John Forsythe) are too dark or low-lit; if this is symbolism, it's inconsistent and inappropriate for the realistic style. People might argue the film does contain symbolism, specifically the famous rain on the window that overlaps onto the face of a fugitive, as if crying for him. However, film photographer Conrad Hall admitted that scene was a serendipitous accident.
The time (a year?) the 2 fugitives spent hiding is apparently compressed in a few seconds - one moment it's summer, then snowing, then summer. Then the detective answers the phone and reacts as if no time has gone by when he hears they've reappeared. At the conclusion, the film tacks on an anti-death penalty message by noting how capital punishment is also committed "in cold blood;" a comparison too big too late.
What I find most remarkable is the similarity to "Midnight Cowboy" which was made 2 years later. Both films are about two socially fringe characters - one short, lame dark haired, the other tall and light-haired. One character admires himself in the mirror and has subjective flash-backs, the other is a con man. However, the book "Midnight Cowboy" was published a year before the book "In cold blood." Was "Midnight Cowboy" loosely based on the actual murderers, perhaps from newspaper reports? While the characters seems more than accidentally similar, it's a mystery what influenced what.
The time (a year?) the 2 fugitives spent hiding is apparently compressed in a few seconds - one moment it's summer, then snowing, then summer. Then the detective answers the phone and reacts as if no time has gone by when he hears they've reappeared. At the conclusion, the film tacks on an anti-death penalty message by noting how capital punishment is also committed "in cold blood;" a comparison too big too late.
What I find most remarkable is the similarity to "Midnight Cowboy" which was made 2 years later. Both films are about two socially fringe characters - one short, lame dark haired, the other tall and light-haired. One character admires himself in the mirror and has subjective flash-backs, the other is a con man. However, the book "Midnight Cowboy" was published a year before the book "In cold blood." Was "Midnight Cowboy" loosely based on the actual murderers, perhaps from newspaper reports? While the characters seems more than accidentally similar, it's a mystery what influenced what.
low-brow humor, vulgar, bad taste, etc
14 June 2003
The movie starts with a defecation joke and wallows down hill from there. The editor (he ain't no filmmaker) changes the original assimilated black main character into an modern, threatening, constantly cursing urban character. On the surface this sounds like a funny absurd twist, but grows immediately wearisome as there's nothing inherently funny happening in the dialogue. The editor interrupts the film several times by inserting pointless home-movie quality snippets of unrelated asides or of a naked woman gyrating. Overall there are few clever or silly moments, so if you're fan of Woody Allen's "What's up Tiger Lily?", Firesign Theatre, or MST3K, you might be disappointed.
UFO
(1970–1971)
weirdly derivative, redeemed by downbeat endings
14 June 2003
Superficially the show seems inspired by a variety of sources: the intro music and credits are synched like Mission Impossible (Ed Bishop's white hair and voice like Peter Graves); the Moonbase women have a uniform appearance like "Cat women on the Moon;" the closing credits and music are reminiscent of the open/close credits of "The Invaders;" campy storylines like "The Avengers." Ed Bishop seems to have taken a lesson on sadistic command from his captain in "The Bedford incident." And any married couple in the series is as predictably doomed as the red shirts on "Star Trek."
What appears to be bad acting is really poorly written, underdeveloped characters. Anderson's previous puppets seem to have more character only because we project more humanness in their facade. Anderson actually hasn't given up his supermarionetting, and uses it for any f/x chance he gets. The sci-fi ideas aren't always well explored, and by now are somewhat trite; still, there are some memorable episodes dealing with drugs and mind control.
There are many hilarious anomalies, such as women applying make-up while at their posts; the bosses blowing smoke rings in SHADO headquarters; Bishop's office has a bulk liquor dispenser (even though he NEVER drinks); the swinging 1960's fashions and behavior are still de rigueur; the camera often focusus on women's derrieres, making a game of whose face goes with whose derriere. The most ridiculous is the Moonbase women's uniform purple wig & make-up. However, this might be explained indirectly by the second episode: the staff aren't suppose to develop personal attachments, and making the women look identical might keep the men's libido free-floating. Since that episode dealt with a woman's attachment, it would appear they underestimated women's sexuality - making the Moonbase men wear Bozo the clown fright wigs would eliminate that problem. Very nonsensical is the character who's always threatening to cut off SHADO's funding - according to the flashbacks, he's the same character who helped create SHADO! Also peculiar is how Bishop takes impish glee when he's manipulating someone, and though he's protecting humanity as a whole, he'll gladly sacrifice any individual to keep secret the alien invaders.
Set against this weird, campy background are some of the most downbeat story endings you'll find, a strange contrast bordering on gallows humor. A murderous wife is allowed to finish her plans; Bishop's marriage disintegrates under work pressure; he sacrifices his son in another instance (the only episode he whispers rather than yells dramatically); abducted youth suddenly age to death; all married couples are doomed in the series. Perhaps this isn't surprising to the British who invented gallows humor, and they were probably nonplussed by the incredible worst case scenario finale in Anderson's "Journey to the far side of the sun." It's Bishop's character, and the eerie, unsettling non-Hollywood endings that make the series memorable.
What appears to be bad acting is really poorly written, underdeveloped characters. Anderson's previous puppets seem to have more character only because we project more humanness in their facade. Anderson actually hasn't given up his supermarionetting, and uses it for any f/x chance he gets. The sci-fi ideas aren't always well explored, and by now are somewhat trite; still, there are some memorable episodes dealing with drugs and mind control.
There are many hilarious anomalies, such as women applying make-up while at their posts; the bosses blowing smoke rings in SHADO headquarters; Bishop's office has a bulk liquor dispenser (even though he NEVER drinks); the swinging 1960's fashions and behavior are still de rigueur; the camera often focusus on women's derrieres, making a game of whose face goes with whose derriere. The most ridiculous is the Moonbase women's uniform purple wig & make-up. However, this might be explained indirectly by the second episode: the staff aren't suppose to develop personal attachments, and making the women look identical might keep the men's libido free-floating. Since that episode dealt with a woman's attachment, it would appear they underestimated women's sexuality - making the Moonbase men wear Bozo the clown fright wigs would eliminate that problem. Very nonsensical is the character who's always threatening to cut off SHADO's funding - according to the flashbacks, he's the same character who helped create SHADO! Also peculiar is how Bishop takes impish glee when he's manipulating someone, and though he's protecting humanity as a whole, he'll gladly sacrifice any individual to keep secret the alien invaders.
Set against this weird, campy background are some of the most downbeat story endings you'll find, a strange contrast bordering on gallows humor. A murderous wife is allowed to finish her plans; Bishop's marriage disintegrates under work pressure; he sacrifices his son in another instance (the only episode he whispers rather than yells dramatically); abducted youth suddenly age to death; all married couples are doomed in the series. Perhaps this isn't surprising to the British who invented gallows humor, and they were probably nonplussed by the incredible worst case scenario finale in Anderson's "Journey to the far side of the sun." It's Bishop's character, and the eerie, unsettling non-Hollywood endings that make the series memorable.
Frankenstein 1970
(1958)
Wow! AIP comes full circle with Universal horror films!
14 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*some spoilers*
This is one of those films where the subtext transcends the film itself. AIP had just made "I was a teenage werewolf," "Teenage Frankenstein," and "How to make a monster," the last of which was a self-referential take on how a make-up artist really does turn 2 actors into a werewolf and Frankenstein monster. "Frankenstein 1970" follows this blurring of reality by following documentary filmmakers interviewing the "real" Baron Frankenstein, necessarily played by Boris Karloff who began the Frankenstein saga at Universal Pictures. We quickly find out his motivation to create a monster is very personal: wartime Nazi torture has left him "less than a man" and prematurely aged him 20 years, thus sexually this Baron really is barren. Boris' make-up here is excellent at suggesting old age and depravity. He's enraged when a female actress he's attracted to shows some attention to his manservant ("you are much endowed with Miss. Lund's attentions!"), his words reflecting his sexual insecurity. Since cloning wasn't yet popular in the 1950's, he must assemble a body to perpetuate himself. "Yes, you CAN be of use" (as organ donors), the Baron laughs like a classic mad scientist, leaving the other characters speechless. Sex is also on the minds of the filmmakers. The director is apparently a Casanova, and Boris especially covets his eyeballs for his monster (the eyes are what smoulder in love). However, there's abit of black humor (like Lovecraft's "Herbert West-reanimator") as the blind monster keeps killing the wrong person and Boris keeps flushing unwanted body parts down his futuristic acid-filled toilet.
Speaking of futuristic, why "1970" (the 230th anniversary is no explanation)? Boris doesn't wear long hair and bellbottoms. Probably this was just a way of saying "in the near future" so everyone could still look and act like it's 1958 but the laboratory is futuristic (atomic) and he does have a sink faucet that turns on by photoelectric sensor just like today's modern restrooms.
Aside from sex, the second subtext is the filmmaking itself, which is highlighted approximately in the beginning, middle and end of the movie. First the film seems to be about a monster chasing a girl - the monster is a mysterious chimera - werewolf hands, Frankenstein's big feet, Mummy-like lame leg, but the face is never shown. The girl screams, then we hear "Cut" - we're really watching the documentary filmmakers making a film. Later we're set up again as the Baron explains his family history directly to the camera. We know now that this is probably part of the filmmakers film. As before, a girl screams, we hear "Cut," but the scream was unintentional - the Baron's speech was so riveting it scares an off-stage actress! The scriptgirl mentions the Baron was ad-libbing, so now it is the filmmakers who are being directed/used by their actor. This reversal is made complete in the very curious final scene where the filmmakers enter Baron's laboratory; one turns on a light, another cues up Baron's tape recorder, then plays it (they're unconsciously living their job in the Baron's "studio" - "Lights, camera, action"). They look at each other with the realization they were the Baron's actors. If this isn't strange enough, the Baron's monster is finally revealed. Instead of being ugly, it's the face of the pre-tortured Baron (young, blonde, with a virile-suggesting pencil mustache)! The real "monster" would then be the Baron himself - old, withered, scarred, white-haired, murderous. Over the years audiences often refer to Frankenstein's unnamed monster as "Frankenstein", and it's usually true the mad scientist is worse than his creation. Here this is made explicit by allowing Boris Karloff to play both roles in one film; it also brings everything (the actor, character and story) full circle with it's origins in the Universal films. Mind-blowing in scope.
This is one of those films where the subtext transcends the film itself. AIP had just made "I was a teenage werewolf," "Teenage Frankenstein," and "How to make a monster," the last of which was a self-referential take on how a make-up artist really does turn 2 actors into a werewolf and Frankenstein monster. "Frankenstein 1970" follows this blurring of reality by following documentary filmmakers interviewing the "real" Baron Frankenstein, necessarily played by Boris Karloff who began the Frankenstein saga at Universal Pictures. We quickly find out his motivation to create a monster is very personal: wartime Nazi torture has left him "less than a man" and prematurely aged him 20 years, thus sexually this Baron really is barren. Boris' make-up here is excellent at suggesting old age and depravity. He's enraged when a female actress he's attracted to shows some attention to his manservant ("you are much endowed with Miss. Lund's attentions!"), his words reflecting his sexual insecurity. Since cloning wasn't yet popular in the 1950's, he must assemble a body to perpetuate himself. "Yes, you CAN be of use" (as organ donors), the Baron laughs like a classic mad scientist, leaving the other characters speechless. Sex is also on the minds of the filmmakers. The director is apparently a Casanova, and Boris especially covets his eyeballs for his monster (the eyes are what smoulder in love). However, there's abit of black humor (like Lovecraft's "Herbert West-reanimator") as the blind monster keeps killing the wrong person and Boris keeps flushing unwanted body parts down his futuristic acid-filled toilet.
Speaking of futuristic, why "1970" (the 230th anniversary is no explanation)? Boris doesn't wear long hair and bellbottoms. Probably this was just a way of saying "in the near future" so everyone could still look and act like it's 1958 but the laboratory is futuristic (atomic) and he does have a sink faucet that turns on by photoelectric sensor just like today's modern restrooms.
Aside from sex, the second subtext is the filmmaking itself, which is highlighted approximately in the beginning, middle and end of the movie. First the film seems to be about a monster chasing a girl - the monster is a mysterious chimera - werewolf hands, Frankenstein's big feet, Mummy-like lame leg, but the face is never shown. The girl screams, then we hear "Cut" - we're really watching the documentary filmmakers making a film. Later we're set up again as the Baron explains his family history directly to the camera. We know now that this is probably part of the filmmakers film. As before, a girl screams, we hear "Cut," but the scream was unintentional - the Baron's speech was so riveting it scares an off-stage actress! The scriptgirl mentions the Baron was ad-libbing, so now it is the filmmakers who are being directed/used by their actor. This reversal is made complete in the very curious final scene where the filmmakers enter Baron's laboratory; one turns on a light, another cues up Baron's tape recorder, then plays it (they're unconsciously living their job in the Baron's "studio" - "Lights, camera, action"). They look at each other with the realization they were the Baron's actors. If this isn't strange enough, the Baron's monster is finally revealed. Instead of being ugly, it's the face of the pre-tortured Baron (young, blonde, with a virile-suggesting pencil mustache)! The real "monster" would then be the Baron himself - old, withered, scarred, white-haired, murderous. Over the years audiences often refer to Frankenstein's unnamed monster as "Frankenstein", and it's usually true the mad scientist is worse than his creation. Here this is made explicit by allowing Boris Karloff to play both roles in one film; it also brings everything (the actor, character and story) full circle with it's origins in the Universal films. Mind-blowing in scope.
Tell Your Friends