zwrite2 Reviews

Harry and Tonto (1974)

Charming And Interesting Movie

[8/10 · 3 December 2015]

I like movies that are focused and don't have too many sideplots. My experience is that sideplots often make a movie worse.

"Harry and Tonto" is the perfect movie for people like me who like focused movies. The movie is about an old man and his cat. It follows Harry, played by Art Carney in an Oscar winning performance, as he travels around the USA after his New York City apartment building is converted into a parking garage.

I didn't think that I'd be interested in a movie about this topic, but Harry has many interesting experiences as he travels to Los Angeles, including shacking up in a motel with a teen girl and meeting a hooker as he is hitchhiking. In addition, his devotion to his cat Tonto is charming. Initially, he wants to fly to Chicago, but airport authorities want to separate them and he is against this.

The major problem I have with the movie is a big one -- Tonto gets sick suddenly and dies and Harry doesn't seem to be as bothered by this as he should be. There was no hint that Tonto was old until he got sick. I think, in retrospect, that Harry should have talked more about his passion for Tonto with his children and others and should have revealed his concern about traveling with an old cat (that I didn't realize was old until a minute before he died).

I deducted one point from the movie because it wasn't exciting enough, interesting enough, and thought provoking enough to earn a 10 and another point because of how the death of Tonto was handled. I am still tempted to deduct another point because Harry didn't talk enough to Tonto -- and I still might.

Stagecoach (1939)

It's a 1930s "Breakfast Club"

[8/10 · 31 July 2008]

Before comparing "Stagecoach to "The Breakfast Club," I'd like to discuss why I believe romances in old movies are often as immoral as the sexual affairs in modern films.

I'm not thrilled with sexually explicit movies featuring virtual strangers sleeping with each other, but I think people who say classics are morally superior are wrong. Old films often feature pretty young women going crazy over every guy they see even if the man is middle-aged and ugly, people who just met discussing spending the rest of their lives together, and passionless marriages. These romances are NOT virtuous.

In "Stagecoach," John Wayne's Ringo Kid proposes marriage to Claire Trevor's Dallas on the day they met. Before his proposal, they spent just a few minutes alone, never kissed, and often weirdly stared at each other. He has NO idea who she is. More alarmingly, he is under arrest, but wants Dallas to move to his ranch in Mexico and wait for him for years while he's in jail. Ringo is very stupid, selfish, and immoral.

The romance would have been better if they snuck off and, well, did it – or at least did something passionate. Instead, as he thinks he's about to go to jail for several years, he says goodbye to Dallas by shaking her hand. I'm not kidding. This is NOT a virtuous romance.

But, director John Ford deserves credit for raising the quality of Westerns by making "Stagecoach" (1939) a character study rather than a shoot-em-up. Like "The Breakfast Club," it is mostly about characters with major problems or flaws. Ringo is a convicted – albeit framed – killer. Lucy is pregnant. Dallas is a hooker, Doc Boone an alcoholic, Hatfield a gambler, Peacock a whiskey salesman, and Gatewood a thief.

The above seven characters are in a stagecoach that's traveling from Arizona to New Mexico through Apache territory. Their interaction is reminiscent of the relationship of the characters in 1985's "Breakfast Club" – five teens sent to the same room for detention because they violated school rules.

"Stagecoach," like "Breakfast Club," has an accepted vs. unaccepted plot. Representing the good are Gatewood, a bank president whose thievery is not known by the other passengers, and Lucy, a pious, married woman with snobbish friends. Gatewood and Lucy think they're morally superior. The bad are represented by Dallas and Doc Boone, who are both being kicked out of town by the Ladies Law and Order League.

Gatewood, Lucy and Hatfield – who boarded the coach to protect Lucy's virtue – avoid the others. Ringo was picked up away from the town where the others boarded so he doesn't know Dallas is a whore. During the characters' travails, everyone learns that Gatewood is a selfish misanthrope and Dallas is a very good person. Lucy and Dallas bond the way that people from different backgrounds in "Breakfast Club" do.

Ford was very effective in satirizing pillars of society and demolishing the stereotypes of outcasts. He brilliantly conveyed the film's ultimate lesson when Ringo didn't cancel the marriage after learning about Dallas' profession. However, his characters are too black and white. While watching the movie, I kept thinking "Stagecoach" was a trendsetter as a character portrayal, but had less depth than future films of its genre which had more multifaceted characters, better dialogue, and faster pacing. I nodded off a few times.

In addition, portraying Apaches as savages who kill Americans for no reason is offensive, and Wayne can't act around females. He's great as a tough guy, but he has limited acting skills. Watch Jimmy Stewart and Wayne in "Liberty Valance" if you want to see the difference between two men's romantic acting skills.

In 1939, I would have given "Stagecoach" a 10 for exploring topics that earlier adventures shunned. Today, I'm unsure what to rate it because it has been surpassed by other character portrayals. I chose 8.

ZWrite

P.S.: I want to give an IMDb poster named Spudnic credit for reminding me of "The Breakfast Club." I mentioned that movie in a review I wrote on "The Naked Spur" last year, but initially didn't think about it.

Jurassic Park (1993)

More science, less adventure needed

[7/10 · 28 July 2008]

The very concept of dinosaurs coming back to life is so fascinating that "Jurassic Park" had the potential to be one of the best movies ever. At minimum, it should have earned a 10 rating.

Unfortunately, director Steven Spielberg and the writers did not spend enough time teaching us – perhaps, via the film's children – about dinosaurs. Instead, there are too many dumbing-down scenes with dinosaurs relentlessly hunting people and humans doing all sorts of incredible gymnastics to stay alive.

On the plus side, the movie has several "wow" moments involving gentle dinosaurs. The special effects are tremendous. When the characters first saw dinosaurs on the island near Costa Rica, I felt as awestruck as they did. Later, we see a dinosaur born in a lab, Laura Dern's character helping a sick dinosaur, a dinosaur eating plants a few feet away from Sam Neill's character and the two children, and dozens of gazelle-like dinosaurs sprinting away from a massive meat-eating predator. These scenes were spectacular.

There are also a couple of interesting scenes focusing on the mean carnivorous dinosaurs. But, the meat eaters just don't stop chasing the humans. The action goes on and on and on. The longer these scenes go on, the more "Jurassic" evolves from a fascinating science fiction story into a trite action-adventure.

I'm for action-adventure, and liked that the plot included a greedy computer expert played by Newman of "Seinfeld" conspiring to steal dinosaur DNA. Newman's comeuppance was enjoyable, and "Jurassic" was better because his behavior caused the dinosaurs to escape from their habitats and go after innocent people.

But, there were many times that I wanted the pace to slow down and listen to the dinosaur experts played by Dern and Neill discuss the various species of dinosaurs. I also wanted to see more scenes with different species interacting with each other, more everyday scenes of dinosaurs doing whatever dinosaurs do, and even more scenes of the people interacting with the gentle dinosaurs.

Spielberg, I think, missed a wonderful opportunity to educate the public in an entertaining way. An excellent movie would have balanced education and entertainment, but "Jurassic" took a mid-story turn toward entertainment, and I wasn't particularly entertained.

The dinosaurs the movie focused on were more like people obsessed with winning. As far as I know, animals chase their prey, succeed or fail, and then look for other prey. They don't fail, but then spend hours looking for the prey that escaped from them instead of looking for other prey. If dinosaurs are that smart, I would have liked to hear the dinosaur experts discuss what else they could do.

Spielberg deserves credit for inserting personal touches in the middle of his action-adventure and developing the Neill character from a child-hater into a child-lover although his quick transformation was a bit implausible. I also liked the comic relief of Jeff Goldblum's character, but the writers needed to explain better why a statistical theorist/philosopher was in the movie in the first place.

I also think that the Richard Attenborough character was too much like the Dr. Frankenstein character. Here, was a brilliant entrepreneur who spent years pursuing his dream of re-creating life. Then, as soon as his experiment goes awry, he – like Frankenstein – wants to abandon his dream. The ending would have been better if viewers were left thinking about whether dinosaurs coming back to life was a good or bad thing instead of watching a black-and-white anti-dinosaur position.

I cast an 8 for "Jurassic Park" when I initially voted on it, but the more I think and write about it, the more I conclude it deserves a 7 instead because it really missed an opportunity to be great.

ZWrite

Out of Africa (1985)

Best cinematography, but not best picture

[5/10 · 27 July 2008]

It's very difficult to be critical of a man who just passed away, Sydney Pollack, but "Out of Africa" did not deserve the Best Picture or Best Director Oscar.

The movie, though, did deserve its Best Cinematography award. I felt like I was watching a National Geographic special as I observed the beautiful landscapes of Kenya and the native animals hunting, playing, and avoiding predators. "Africa" is set between 1913 and about 1930, but there are even photographs from airplanes.

Oftentimes, I wished the movie was a documentary about Kenya's lions, monkeys, rhinos, and elephants, and the sometimes sleep-inducing plot wouldn't interfere with it. The best scenes involved animals – Meryl Streep's character (Karen Blixen) freezing as a lion approached her while Robert Redford's character (Denys Finch Hatton) hesitated before firing his gun, Streep whipping lions eating her oxen, monkeys playing with record albums, and Blixen and Hatton hunting lions.

As a director, Pollack should have done a much better job of editing. The movie is based on a real-life story, but the life of Blixen just wasn't interesting enough for a 160-minute film. It would have been much better at 100 to 120 minutes. Most of the scenes of the hoity-toity Europeans partying in Kenya were pointless, and the pacing was really, really slow.

But length is NOT the only problem. Blixen needed to be far more passionate about Africa and its people. I presumed she wrote a book (pen name Isak Dinesen) on Africa because she loved it, but this emotion is not conveyed in the film. She does talk once or twice about teaching native Africans to read, but she doesn't exhibit enough passion, and it's others who do the teaching.

In addition, "Africa" is promoted as "one of the screen's great epic romances" (the first sentence on my movie box.) It just isn't. The Blixen/Hatton romance is really slow developing. They first kiss 100 minutes into the movie.

The movie's last hour is stronger plotwise than the first 100 minutes as Hatton and Blixen's conflicting views of marriage and life makes the story close to compelling for the first time, the dialogue between them improves dramatically, and there are other plot twists. It's too bad Redford underplays his character and comes across as a 21st century American instead of the early 20th century Brit he's supposed to be.

As for Streep, she is so brilliant in "Sophie's Choice" and other movies that I'm guessing that she got the Danish accent of her character right. However, the accent is sometimes hard to understand so I wish she chose being viewer-friendly over realistic.

Analytically, "Africa" deserves a 6 because the last hour is strong enough to get an 8. I gave it a 5, though, because the plot during the first 100 minutes was so weak that I wouldn't have watched the last hour if I wasn't writing a review.

ZWrite

Charade (1963)

Cary Grant ruined this movie

[8/10 · 25 July 2008]

Actually, I liked "Charade" a lot, but I wrote the above provocative headline to make a point about the movie's primary flaw.

First, though, I'd like to focus on the positive. "Charade" is very enjoyable and very suspenseful, has surprising twists and turns, and has very interesting supportive characters. While watching the movie, I wanted to keep watching to see what would happen next.

I was particularly interested in the mystery of whether Cary Grant's character was a good or bad guy. As a viewer, I bonded with the Audrey Hepburn character as she tried to figure out whether Grant was on her side, colluding with her late husband's foes, or a cold-blooded killer and thief.

"Charade" hooked me so much that I watched it three times and was never bored as I rewatched it. Watching the movie again also gave me an opportunity to look for the clues that I didn't pay attention to the first time. "Charade" was definitely an effective mystery.

However, "Charade" was NOT an effective romance. It wasn't credible that Hepburn's character would pursue a man who lied to her constantly, confessed he wanted to steal her husband's $250,000, might have murdered him, and was twice her age. The second he said he was the brother of one of her husband's co-conspirators in the theft of government gold, she should have realized that what appeared to be a chance meeting at a ski resort was, in fact, a reason to suspect he was evil.

Hepburn's constant romantic advances were extremely annoying. I blame Grant for the lousy romantic angle because everything I read about this movie says that he would not take the part unless the script was rewritten. Originally, the script had the man pursuing the woman.

Director Stanley Donen should have selected someone else to play the male lead – a 40ish James Bond-type playboy whose roguish charm eventually seduces Hepburn, who should have been resisting a romance for most of the movie. Choosing a celebrity over a script is not a good idea.

"Charade" also would have been better if Alfred Hitchcock was the director. Donen does a nice job of balancing suspense, humor and sharp dialogue, but the tone is way too light. People are being killed, but the characters don't convey as much fear as they should. They act like bystanders observing the murders from a distance rather than principals who could be the next to perish.

These flaws, though, were not something I thought as much about as the mystery. "Who killed Hepburn's husband?" I kept thinking to myself. As "Charade" progressed, my interest in the mystery deepened as the possible murderers were killed themselves and the suspect was not shown. Throughout the movie, the supporting characters played by George Kennedy, Ned Glass, James Coburn, and Walter Matthau were all distinctive, entertaining, and well-developed.

Getting immersed in the characters pays off when the writers throw viewers for a loop by making surprising revelations about a couple of them near the end.

I realize I've asserted that "Charade" has major flaws, but I'm giving it an 8 because I really enjoyed its primary plot, suspense, and characters.

ZWrite

Tootsie (1982)

Well-written story overcomes very bad disguise

[8/10 · 24 July 2008]

Whenever I see a man pretending to be a woman in a movie or vice-versa, I can't stop thinking "are you kidding me?" Whether it's Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon in "Some Like It Hot" or Greta Garbo in "Queen Christina," I just can't accept that people around them are fooled by very bad disguises.

"Tootsie" is no different. Dustin Hoffman was superb as Michael Dorsey, but he was just not credible as Dorothy Michaels. "Dorothy" just doesn't look, talk, nor dress like any woman I've ever seen.

Besides, Dorsey – like the Curtis, Lemmon and Garbo characters – acts stupid. You'd think he'd breathe a sigh of relief after each work day that he wasn't unmasked. Instead, he dramatically increases his chances of getting caught by spending a weekend as a woman with Jessica Lange's Julie Nichols character, not inventing a boyfriend so men won't pursue him/her, and stunningly, uttering a pickup line as Dorsey to Nichols that Nichols told Michaels she wanted to hear.

Nichols was beyond dumb not to realize Michaels was Dorsey. Even their names were very similar. And how could no one working for the soap opera he/she acted on nor the magazine and TV reporters who interviewed him/her not be suspicious of a middle-aged person with no proof of a pre-soap opera life?

Given my history of cynicism, though, I have to accept that I will never find cross-dressing disguises credible and judge "Tootsie" by other criteria, including its many funny scenes. The best laughs occur while Dorsey is talking to his roommate (played by Bill Murray) or his agent (played by Sydney Pollack). Murray and Pollack, the movie's director, are superb.

The best thing about "Tootsie," though, is that its well-written script has a lot of heart. While pretending to be a woman, Dorsey inspires other women on the soap opera to be more assertive and less accepting of misogynistic behavior by standing up to men and he transforms his TV character into someone who inspires females around the U.S. to become more independent. Being treated as an inferior as Michaels also gives Dorsey a new perspective that makes him more respectful toward women.

Dorsey also exhibits heart by choosing friends over wealth. He only wants to make enough money in TV to ensure that a play written by Murray will be produced and give a financially struggling friend played by Teri Garr a co-starring role. Thus, Dorsey wants to leave the soap opera although it could make him rich.

The story also sets up a lot of interesting character conflicts, including an overall man vs. woman conflict. Since Dorsey is both, his internal battle as he pursues a woman as a man, spurns two men as a woman, wrestles with how to treat Garr as she pursues a relationship with him that he is not interested in, and hides his identity while dressed as a woman is the most compelling conflict.

The conflict between a macho director played by Dabney Coleman and Michaels is probably the most interesting external conflict, but there are several other examples of women challenging men. The conflicts lure viewers deeper into the story and make us more interested in what happens to Hoffman, Lange, Coleman, Murray, Garr, and Charles Durning, who plays Lange's father.

If I had seen a movie where a man credibly posed as a woman, I would harshly penalize "Tootsie" in my rating. I haven't so I will have to focus on the fact that the story, dialogue, comedy, acting, and character conflicts are almost good enough to give "Tootsie" a 9.

I deducted one point because Dorsey should have been smarter around Nichols, she should have been more suspicious about Michaels, and the climactic speech was way too convoluted. I gave "Tootsie" an 8.

ZWrite

Hoosiers (1986)

Too formulaic to be great

[7/10 · 24 July 2008]

If "Hoosiers" was the first movie I'd ever seen, I'd give it a 10.

This movie has all the elements of a great story. It's, on the surface, an exciting movie depicting a shorthanded boys basketball team from a tiny high school that is inspired to overachieve by a middle-aged coach seeking redemption. Most viewers surely root for the players and coach.

In addition, "Hoosiers" has, on the surface, many very interesting external and internal character conflicts. The coach, played by Gene Hackman, battles the town's old-timers, who are resistant to outsiders and anyone with new ideas and methods. The coach also battles players unaccustomed to working hard on defense and passing as well as a teacher/assistant principal who is more interested in academics than sports.

The stories of a drunk ex-basketball star being given a chance to be an assistant coach and a star player who won't join the team until he respects the coach are also, on the surface, compelling.

"Hoosiers," though, is not the first movie I've seen. In fact, I've watched plenty of movies that have excellent stories like "Hoosiers" does, but also have way more depth beneath the surface. In short, this movie is way too formulaic and unsurprising to be great.

How was "Hoosiers" unsurprising? As I watched Hackman's character meet and argue with the teacher played by Barbara Hershey, I jotted down a prediction that they would have a romance. Check. As I watched the principal tell Hackman that Jimmy, who was not on the team, was a great player, I predicted that he would return to the squad and lead it to the championship. Check. And, obviously, I knew Hackman would win over his players and the town.

Nevertheless, "Hoosiers" would have been outstanding if it had depth and more interesting characters. "Rocky" was formulaic in many ways, but it had quirky characters who were developed, surprising and compelling scenes, and passionate dialogue.

"Hoosiers," though, didn't thoroughly develop characters like Jimmy and the assistant coach played by Dennis Hopper, dealt superficially with subplots, and had dialogue that had the feel of trite coach sportspeak rather than moving in-depth conversations.

Defending the film's formulaic nature by saying it's based on a true story just doesn't cut it because it is NOT close to being non-fiction. In fact, I wonder how people came to believe the movie was based on reality.

Wikipedia's list of differences between reality and "Hoosiers" is very long. This might be typical, but the movie's two major premises differ from reality. The real coach was not a hotheaded middle-aged single guy and Milan High was a preseason favorite, not an underdog.

I know my review focuses on the negative. This is because I am trying to make the point that "Hoosiers" had a chance for greatness, but came up short.

The truth is that "Hoosiers" is still a pretty good movie. I give it a 7.

ZWrite

Ali (2001)

"Ali" misses essence of Ali

[6/10 · 14 March 2008]

It's difficult to comprehend how "Ali" can be too long and incomplete, can feature an excellent portrayal of the world's most charismatic person and be boring, and have many riveting scenes, but fail as a drama.

Yet, "Ali" is incomplete, boring, and a failed movie. The reason is that the movie misses a large part of the essence of Muhammad Ali.

"Ali is often unfocused and unclear, bouncing from topic to topic and spending too much time on things like Ali's womanizing and an incredible 46 minutes in Zaire while ignoring large parts of his boxing career and inaccurately portraying some of his and The Nation of Islam's history.

The movie should have focused on four areas where Ali was distinctive – his fight against the U.S. military, his religion, his personality, and his boxing ability. The movie includes a lot of material on all four of these subjects, but has a severe point-of-view problem.

You can't understand the essence and impact of Ali without scenes which show how America viewed him. He was arguably the most HATED person in the USA for a few years in the 1960s and, perhaps, beyond and is now one of the most admired and popular people in the world. The transition was a result of Ali being extremely courageous, brash and charismatic.

Yet, you'd never know from watching this movie that Ali was hated by the general public. Here is how I would have presented Ali and his distinctiveness:

HIS FIGHT AGAINST THE MILITARY: I would have started the movie with Ali standing up to the U.S. government in 1966 when it drafted him into the Army and ended it with a scene showing how popular he became, perhaps the 1996 torch lighting ceremony at the Atlanta Olympics.

Thus, I'd emphasize the powerful evading-the-draft scenes in "Ali," add scenes that showed how Americans viewed him during the Vietnam War, and include flashbacks with Ali winning the Olympics and world title, experiencing the evils of segregation, and gravitating toward Islam.

Returning to live action, I'd show how Ali sacrificed the three-plus best years of his boxing career because of his strong principles. Interspersing Ali's legal battles with evidence that Americans avidly supported the Vietnam War in 1966, but opposed it by 1971, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ali, could convey how perceptions of "The Greatest" changed.

HIS RELIGION: I'd be more explicit and accurate about how Ali joining The Nation of Islam contributed to Americans' hatred of him.

The movie needed to explain the religion and Ali's theology more clearly (Ali saying "I'll be who I want to be, not what you want me to be" doesn't cut it) and show how Americans regarded Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammad, and the religion itself as racist and dangerous. I'd also cut out the government spook nonsense and accurately explain the Malcolm-Elijah tiff (Malcolm was expelled for condoning JFK's assassination) or drop the subject.

HIS PERSONALITY: The movie did a good job of showing Ali's personality, but not how it offended millions of people. I'm too young to recall the war debate, but I remember how my father despised Ali in the 1970s because he regularly bragged about himself and denigrated others.

Americans despise the selfish, arrogant athletes of 2008, but Ali's personality was far more selfish and arrogant than Barry Bonds' and others. "Ali" should have illustrated how Americans were turned off by Ali's personality by emphasizing his conflict with Joe Frazier. Millions sided with the hard-working, soft-spoken Christian. He still hates Ali, who called him a gorilla.

HIS BOXING ABILITY: Ali was unique. He transformed the image of a profession dominated by inarticulate brutes who attacked and attacked because he had incredible defensive abilities, evasiveness, footwork, dancing, and athleticism as well as very fast hands.

The movie shows little of his dancing – and certainly gives no evidence that this was distinctive. "Ali" needed to include perspectives of boxing analysts who could explain to viewers how truly great he was. It also should have had a five- to 10-minute "Raging Bull"-style summary of his dozens of victories that weren't even mentioned.

Interestingly, the boxing scenes were absolutely fabulous although they didn't convey the essence of Ali. They were extremely realistic unlike the rock 'em/sock 'em robot scenes of "Rocky" and other movies which show Boxer A smashing Boxer B 20 times in a row before somehow Boxer B comes back as if he hadn't been hit at all. I was so impressed by the "Ali" boxing scenes that I was tempted to go back to my review of "Rocky" and deduct a point.

Where to cut? Well, Ali's womanizing was NOT distinctive. A huge percentage of famous people womanize. Ali was too interesting to dredge up his relationships, and they detract from the more interesting elements of his life. Yes, he said he was religious. Grow up America. Religious people cheat too – and always have.

As for the 46 minutes on Zaire, if the Ali-Foreman battle was that interesting, it should be a separate movie. Wait a second. It was – "When We Were Kings." Forty-six minutes here is pointless repetition. Also: I don't care about Bundini Brown's personal problems. He should have been used to illustrate how he helped Ali become a quasi-poet.

As I said in my first graph, the movie has many positive elements. Will Smith, for example, has Ali's cadences and attitude down pat and deserved an Oscar nomination. He doesn't quite convey his charisma, but no one can.

I give "Ali" a 6.

ZWrite

Glory (1989)

Great history lesson illustrated by fantastic storytelling

[9/10 · 9 March 2008]

"Glory" is a great movie with strong, multifaceted characters who have numerous intriguing conflicts. More importantly, "Glory" is a very important movie.

I'm a History aficionado, but I knew nothing about the story of the first all-African American regiment of Civil War soldiers – a 600-person regiment led by a handful of white officers. More movies like this should be made because they can, frankly, help make the American people smarter about history and spur them to learn more.

It's true that the individual African-American soldiers in "Glory" are fictional people in the middle of the portrayal of actual events, but the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Regiment was real. If I find out that the writers had in-depth information on actual soldiers, I'll be disappointed. In the meantime, I'll praise the history lessons imparted by the movie.

"Glory" does an excellent job portraying the different kinds of whites and blacks who lived in the Civil War era – abolitionists, anti-black Union soldiers, corrupt Union officers, educated free blacks, uneducated blacks, and blacks who were understandably angry and rebellious after years of slavery and other moral outrages.

Although the individuals portrayed are fictional, their character types can be used in a classroom to teach Civil War history. "Glory" is not exactly "JFK" – an abomination that has dishonestly taught ignorant young Americans lies about history.

"Glory," though, would be a great movie even if it wasn't a valuable history lesson. The movie is a storytelling masterpiece. It does a splendid job of introducing the main characters and focuses on just the right amount of people – four black soldiers and three white officers. All these characters are strongly developed, and the writing lures viewers into following their progress.

The strong characters set up a long list of interesting character conflicts that dominate the movie and kept me riveted. My list includes the regiment's white abolitionist commander vs. his deputy/lifelong friend, the commander vs. a white officer who harshly disciplines blacks, the commander vs. an educated black man he knew in Boston, an angry black man vs. the educated black man, and the angry black vs. the leader of the blacks portrayed by Morgan Freeman.

Each of these conflicts is bolstered by well-written dialogue that often includes dramatic and intriguing confrontations.

There are also at least three supporting characters in the Union Army that the lead character, Col. Robert Gould Shaw (played by Matthew Broderick), has conflicts with as he fights for the rights of his African-American troops to have adequate equipment and fight the Confederates.

In addition, there are group conflicts that fit seamlessly into the plot – white officers trying to train black soldiers, blacks fighting to be treated as equals, white bigots vs. white non-bigots, Union soldiers and officers persevering despite Confederate threats to execute them for race mixing, and the North vs. the South.

Actual letters written by the real Shaw are used as voice-overs. They give an insight into a man who is empathetic to blacks, has hopes and fears about the Civil War and his regiment, and makes observations about his soldiers' off-the-field culture and camaraderie. His letters make his behavior even more interesting as he evolves into a commander who is often tough toward his trainees.

Although Col. Shaw becomes strong and principled, the evolution of the educated (Thomas) and angry black (played by Denzel Washington) men are even more interesting. Thomas evolves from a privileged man who is a terrible soldier into a profile in courage who overcomes gun wounds to save the life of his personal enemy, Washington, and becomes an outstanding warrior.

Washington is in one great scene after another as he evolves from a selfish, angry man who initiates fights into a war hero who learns how to channel his excessive energy. I generally don't comment on acting, but Washington is spectacular. He earned his Best Supporting Actor award!! I felt like I was watching his character, not him, particularly as he maintained his composure while staring at Col. Shaw as he gets whipped in one of the five best movie scenes I've ever seen.

Washington's intensity in the whipping scene and others (fighting for equal pay, challenging racist white soldiers, lecturing Thomas) leaps off the screen. Sean Penn is a very good actor, but I'm consciously aware it's him when I watch him, and I get the impression he's calibrating how intense he can be without losing his credibility.

"Glory" was even better when I watched it for a second time. I was tempted to give it a 10, but there were a few inexplicable alterations to actual history (Shaw's death was more dramatic in real life), there were minor pacing problems, and I was disappointed that there is not a scene at the end that showed which of the main characters survived. Did they all die? I give "Glory" a 9.

ZWrite

The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946)

I was flabbergasted by this soap opera

[3/10 · 23 February 2008]

As a child in the 1970s, I cringed whenever I viewed a television soap opera that my mother insisted on watching. Every soap opera I ever, involuntarily, watched was shockingly bad.

"The Postman Always Rings Twice" is like a forerunner for those horrible soap operas. The innumerable plot turns are often unbelievably absurd, the dialogue is very shallow, the characters are stupid, and everything is melodramatic. The fact that the Lana Turner character is one of the hottest movie characters I've ever seen can't save "Postman."

The first half of this 1946 movie deserves a 5 or a 6. I often love movies that focus on a few characters, but I just wasn't interested in this film's three main characters. Turner's marriage to an unattractive small-time restaurant owner old enough to be her Dad is not credible. It certainly wasn't Cecil Kellaway's brains that appealed to her because he is oblivious to an affair that occurs right under his nose. Turner and John Garfield's behavior around Kellaway is abnormal.

More importantly, the affair between Garfield and Turner – which begins when he attacks her – is uninteresting. They say nothing to each other about their hopes and dreams, nothing in depth about their love for each other, nothing intelligent, and nothing that reveals who they are. I know virtually nothing about their backgrounds and there is little character development.

Despite the flaws, the plot is interesting enough that I can understand why people like the first half of "Postman." The second half of "Postman," however, just flabbergasted me. The stupid plot turns include:

* The district attorney who prosecuted Turner for killing Kellaway was the closest thing to a WITNESS to the murder because he was the FIRST one who saw the crashed car.

* After witnessing and prosecuting the murder, the D.A. decides to let Turner off on a prison-free manslaughter charge after a 30-second conversation with the defense attorney.

* Several minutes earlier, the defense attorney ignored Turner's objections and entered guilty pleas for murdering Kellaway and trying to murder Garfield.

* Shortly before the two guilty pleas, the D.A. and defense attorney bet on whether Turner will be found guilty of murder – in front of the other suspect.

* After the guilty pleas, Turner and Garfield are placed in the same room in a courthouse and are allowed to move freely although she has just plead guilty to trying to kill him and he has signed a complaint saying he witnessed her murdering Kellaway.

* In the room, Turner implicates Garfield in the Kellaway murder in a confession that is made right in front of him – and typed by someone impersonating an officer of the court.

* After trying to put each other in jail for life, Garfield and Turner decided to live with each other.

* The community is so unbothered that a convicted killer is serving no jail time that it flocks to her restaurant to solicit her autograph, but it is outraged that two unmarried people live together. Thus, Garfield and Turner marry.

* The impersonator tries to extort Garfield and Turner for the paper with the confession he typed although they certainly knew he could have made copies of the paper.

* The police suspected Garfield and Turner of an earlier attempt on Kellaway's life, but they stopped probing because he recovered. Essentially, they negligently allowed Kellaway to be murdered.

There are other plot twists. They occur approximately every 30 seconds. I kept getting the impression that the writers were aware a plot twist was illogical so they wrote another one to try to explain the previous one. With each plot twist, they dug themselves into a deeper hole.

This movie is so stupid that I'm probably being generous in giving it a 3.

ZWrite

A Star Is Born (1937)

Dying star's story far more interesting

[6/10 · 18 February 2008]

If this movie's title was "A Star Slowly Dies," I would have probably given the film a better rating because the parts about Norman Maine were far better than the parts about Esther Blodgett.

The central problem with the movie is that there is NO evidence that Blodgett became a star because of her talent. In the 1954 movie, James Mason's Maine is blown away by the singing ability of Judy Garland's Blodgett. In this version, Fredric March's Maine makes Janet Gaynor's Blodgett a star because he wants to get her into the sack. I'm not making this up.

The start of "Star" sets us up for an Horatio Alger story – an ordinary woman who takes a huge gamble to become an actress despite most of her family's wishes. I waited for a scintilla of evidence that Blodgett had any acting ability or experience. Did she act in a community theatre? Why did she think she could be an actress? These questions, and others, are never answered.

Blodgett's story is supposed to be inspirational. Instead, it is depressing. After moving to Hollywood, she gets a job as a waitress at a gathering of entertainers. There, Maine, a huge star, meets her and finds her really hot. Subsequently, he dates her and then gets her a screen test and a co-starring role in his next movie although he's never seen her perform.

This narrative is depressing because she became a star as a result of Maine objectifying her, and a plain-looking woman with talent would have failed.

In a good story, the writers would have shown us that Blodgett was a great actress. Instead, we're just told that she is. We're shown approximately 10 seconds of her first movie, and she spends most of that time kissing Maine. But, we do hear critics lavishly praise her. By contrast, the 1954 version SHOWS us that Blodgett/Garland is a terrific singer.

As I watched the first half of the movie, I was tempted to label it a failure. However, it gets much stronger in the second half as it focuses less on Blodgett and more on Maine. Once a star, he declines as she rises. His alcohol-fueled psychological breakdown riveted me.

In short, Maine's breakdown was portrayed far better than Blodgett's rise. The movie also has an interesting, sardonic take on the phoniness of the movie industry and how it treats even its stars with a total lack of respect.

Interestingly, one of the problems with the 1937 version of "Star" is that it is too short while the 1954 one is far too long. This is partly because the 1954 movie is a musical while this one is not. This version should have spent more time developing its characters.

I gave "Star Is Born" a 6, balancing the 4 that I gave Blodgett's story with the 8 that I gave Maine's story.

ZWrite

Chariots of Fire (1981)

Movie should have been less 'boring'

[5/10 · 2 January 2008]

The debate about "Chariots of Fire" has always been whether it is boring. As a young man, I thought it was very boring. As a middle-aged man, I found it far less boring this week.

Let me suggest, though, that the debate should be far more substantive – whether the writers did a good job of portraying the two main characters and the rivalry between them. If the answer was yes, "Chariots" would have been much less boring.

The movie has three problems:

1. ERIC LIDDELL'S PORTRAYAL: This man was fascinating. He sacrificed his life while in his 40s because he was a Christian missionary in China. Yet, he is NOT portrayed as fascinating.

We're told he wants to be a missionary, but we should have been SHOWN this. This could have been done via flashbacks to his childhood when his parents were missionaries or via his missionary work if there was any. Speeches to Scottish lads just don't convey his zeal. Instead, we see a relatively cardboard-cutout portrayal of a very religious person.

2. HAROLD ABRAHAMS' PORTRAYAL: I'm Jewish. There has been virtually no discrimination against me, but my father and others of his generation have told me stories that were far more interesting than anything Abrahams went through in this movie.

The stories I've heard were about discrimination in 1950s New York City. It is not credible that Abrahams didn't suffer far more bias in 1920s England. Snide remarks by snotty old men and Abrahams' plaintive wail that was mocked by his girlfriend just aren't interesting. The writers should have found out about the anti-Semitic incidents that undoubtedly occurred.

3. THE LIDDELL ABRAHAMS RIVALRY: Liddell won one race and Abrahams was upset about it. They barely talked to each other!! It's hard to believe their rivalry couldn't have been more vividly portrayed. Did they like each other? What did they say to each other and about each other? There was relatively little tension between them.

Confrontations make plots less boring. Two of the best scenes in "Chariots" are Abrahams telling officials that he won't fire his coach and Liddell telling them he will not run on the Sabbath. The movie would have been much better if Abrahams and Liddell had confrontations regarding their religion with others and personal tiffs with each other.

I had one other problem with "Chariots." After watching it, I researched whether Abrahams and Liddell won medals in races not portrayed on screen. They did. In the course of this research, I noticed that NO hurdler named Andrew Lindsay medaled in the 1924 Olympics. Upon further research, I learned Lindsay does NOT exist.

I understand that writers often take creative license with the truth. I read "Schindler's List." In the movie, there were at least a few incidents where the Itzhak Stern character did things that in real life were actually done by others. This was understandable because too many characters can confuse viewers and introducing them can waste lots of time.

However, Stern was real, he was portrayed accurately, and the incidents involving him were close to accurate. Other incidents like Schindler rescuing an employee from a train heading toward a concentration camp did occur although it was not Stern who was rescued.

What the writers of "Chariots" did in fabricating a person when they had several British runners, some of them medalists, to base a composite character around was UNFORGIVABLE.

After watching "Chariots of Fire," I gave it a 6. But, I penalized it one point afterward for making up Lindsay. My rating is 5.

ZWrite

Queen Christina (1933)

Ludicrous mistaken identity can't spoil cinematic brilliance

[8/10 · 27 December 2007]

I spent 100 minutes trying to decide how much to penalize "Queen Christina" because a key part of the plot was ludicrous. That's how long it took me to watch this movie again.

Thanks to the mistaken identity scenes, I considered giving "Christina" a thumbs-down, but ultimately rated it highly because it is a cinematic masterpiece aside from the aforementioned problem.

Frankly, I was astounded that a movie this mature was produced in 1933. The dialogue is at a very high intellectual level with the characters debating topics like war and culture and challenging the conventional mores of 17th century Sweden.

The dialogue fits seamlessly into the plot. In contrast, the writers of "Hamlet" and "The Lion In Winter" seem to be consciously creating memorable lines that often don't match the characters. The direction is also well thought-out. There are scenes where not one word is uttered, but Greta Garbo conveys the importance of something that just occurred via her expressions and actions.

And "Christina" deserves enormous credit for boldly including topics that I thought were not permitted on the screen in the early 1930s. There is blatant lesbianism, a half-dressed hooker, talk about a queen being a slut, sex between virtual strangers, and a shot at religion.

More importantly, I was very interested in the movie's primary character from start to finish. Christina was strong as a 6-year-old and as a woman with a powerful will who wanted to live her own life and was willing and able to confront people who disagreed with her.

Given the movie's intelligence, how can so many people be so stupid that they believe Christina is a man just because she is wearing pants? I knew nothing about this movie before I watched it so I thought at first that the Spanish envoy believed she was a man because he first saw her from a distance and the innkeeper reflexively addressed authority-like figures as men.

Then, Garbo took off her hat. She talked like a woman, looked like a woman, and made NO attempt to disguise herself. I didn't buy Dustin Hoffman and Jack Lemmon as women, but at least they wore disguises in "Tootsie" and "Some Like It Hot." And their dressing as women was explained!!

This movie needed a scene where Christina says something before going horseback riding about wanting to experience life as a commoner and at least implying that this meant pretending to be a man. And she needed a disguise so the fact that EVERY stranger thinks she is a man is plausible.

I was so upset by the mistaken-identity stupidity that I thought about "Christina" giving a 5. Then, I watched it again. This reinforced my appreciation for the rest of the movie.

I gave "The Graduate" a 9 although Mrs. Robinson's daughter falling for Dustin after he treated her like dirt on a date and stalked her was implausible. I reasoned that a short scene with the daughter telling her Dad that she admired Dustin during their school years would have made her accepting two of his bad behaviors (but not his sleeping with her Mom) more plausible.

Using similar reasoning, I gave "Christina" an 8. The absence of one 30-second scene just can't erase the fact that this movie is otherwise very smart and cinematically advanced.

ZWrite

Serpico (1973)

Great character study with unsatisfactory ending

[7/10 · 6 December 2007]

Excellent movies have to leave me feeling fully satisfied at the conclusion. "Serpico" did not do this although it was an excellent character study.

I rooted for New York City police officer Frank Serpico throughout this non-fiction movie. Courageous and honest, he battled corruption endemic among colleagues and supervisors for many years. Al Pacino was outstanding portraying someone whose personality became unbearable to friends and allies as his efforts to report illegal activities were constantly stymied.

Toward the end of the movie, Serpico finally achieved some success when New York City's mayor appointed a commission to investigate police corruption and he testified about what was essentially organized crime. This victory came at great cost to his well-being and romantic life.

Unfortunately, the movie's end is unclear about whether justice prevailed. The epilogue says nothing about what happened to the movie's characters other than its namesake. I had numerous questions. Were supervisors like the commissioner involved in the payoff system or were they merely intentionally ignoring it? Were any police brass indicted or convicted? Which of the characters that I came to hate during the movie were made to pay for their crimes?

Answers to these and other questions would have induced me to give "Serpico" a higher rating. I wanted to give it a 9 because I was riveted enough to watch several scenes three or more times.

But, basic facts are important. Even if I conceded that the movie could have been made before there was a resolution to the corruption investigation, I still would penalize "Serpico" for not at least informing us viewers about the probe's progress, who Serpico implicated in his testimony and in his interviews with The New York Times and others, and which characters were at risk of prison.

Before writing my conclusion, I want to say something about what I consider numerous ridiculous posts on the IMDb message board. Several people said, in essence, that Serpico lacked character because of the way he treated people. The posters are looking at the trees, not the forest.

In fact, Serpico demonstrated great character because he was courageous in fighting a corrupt system although going along would have been personally beneficial. The movie is a great character portrayal because it shows how this battle turned an offbeat, but relatively sedate person into someone who was often temperamental, obstinate, arrogant, and nasty.

Serpico had many flaws, but his fortitude and ethics are far more important. At minimum, I would assess him as of having far superior character to any of his colleagues who participated in the corruption or knew about it and did nothing even if they were pristine outside of the office.

Some of the comments I read remind me of the debate about Oskar Schindler of "Schindler's List." He had numerous flaws too, but the importance of what he did meant he had great character.

Back to the review. As a character portrayal, "Serpico" deserves a 9. It also deserves a 9 for its portrayal of Serpico's conflicts with his colleagues and its ability to keep viewers interested in his struggles.

As a movie, though, "Serpico" deserves a lower score because it is a bit too long, some scenes about his personal life could be edited better, the timeline and length of Serpico's police service are unclear, some of the supplementary characters are indistinguishable at times, and, most importantly, I was left unsatisfied at the end because I didn't know what happened to the bad guys.

I gave "Serpico" a 7.

ZWrite

Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

Monster's development makes sequel better

[8/10 · 22 November 2007]

If you want to see perhaps the best movie scene of all time, you should watch "Bride of Frankenstein."

The scene I am referring to is a demonstration of why "Bride of Frankenstein" is a better movie than "Frankenstein." In the scene, The Monster walks into the tiny home of a blind, lonely and elderly man. Unaware of The Monster's looks, the old man reaches out to make the stranger his friend. As the friendship grows, the old man teaches his new friend how to talk.

The 7- to 8-minute scene is simple and sentimental yet profound and instructive. It also shows what could have been achieved in the second half of "Frankenstein" if the plot hadn't inexplicably pivoted from a great science fiction movie centered on the development of The Monster into a weak horror story centered on the town's outrage.

Boris Karloff reportedly objected to The Monster speaking in "Bride." He was wrong. The Monster's character development makes the sequel the superior movie. I found it enjoyable that The Monster learned, developed emotional feelings, yearned for friends and women, and enjoyed life. Grunting doesn't make a monster scarier. Intellectual growth does.

But there are true horror scenes in this movie – at least intellectually. The scene with the little people created from seeds by Dr. Pretorius is humorous and scary to think about. "Bride" also benefits from the addition of a truly evil character although Dr. Pretorius is sometimes cartoonishly evil and the significantly less time that was spent on Dr. Frankenstein's boring love life.

The creation scene in "Frankenstein" was one of that movie's highlights, but the creation scene of the bride in this movie is actually better. Less innovative perhaps, but more complex and interesting.

Unfortunately, the ending of the movie was just plain awful. I wanted to see the character of the "bride" develop or at least begin to develop the way The Monster developed. I'm not sure whether I wanted to see a relationship between Dr. Frankenstein's two creations, but I certainly did not want to see the movie end minutes after they met.

The movie should have been significantly longer. The ending was too rushed, too absurd, too contrived, and too preachy as suddenly The Monster became a moral arbiter of who is good and who is bad.

The ending was so bad that I was tempted to cut my rating from 9 or 10 to 7, but I gave "Frankenstein" a 7 and "Bride" was definitely better. I gave it an 8.

ZWrite

Frankenstein (1931)

Much better as science fiction than horror

[7/10 · 21 November 2007]

Let me get this out of the way. The most enjoyable part of "Frankenstein" was when The Monster killed Edward Van Sloan's character. In all his movies ("Dracula," "The Mummy"), he plays a smug, all-knowing, plot-killer. "Frankenstein" would have been better without him. There, I said it.

In all seriousness, I found the first half of the movie inventive, intriguing, mysterious, foreboding, suspenseful, and provocative. It worked as a science fiction movie. As a citizen, I would never approve of a Dr. Frankenstein conducting bizarre experiments on humans. As a movie viewer, I was gung-ho in support of the Colin Clive character being an anti-establishment renegade.

In addition, watching The Monster adjust to life as a newborn was very interesting. He was very gentle, obeying his creator's commands like a puppy while walking harmlessly around the laboratory. Later, he fearfully reacts to his first sight of light while Dr. F. seeks to comfort him.

I looked forward to 40 more minutes of watching the world from The Monster's perspective. (OK, I knew what was going to happen, but I try to block my knowledge so my review is fairer.) Unfortunately, the Van Sloan character, Dr. Waldman, stepped in and stuck a dagger into the story.

The turning point of the movie was when Frankenstein's assistant scared The Monster by holding a torch a few feet from his head. Of course, he reacted negatively and throws a temper tantrum. Dr. Waldman urges Dr. F to "shoot it" and the creator makes the boneheaded decision of tying up The Monster and giving up on his experiment after one negative experience.

This turnaround ruined the movie – and makes no sense. Instantaneously, Frankenstein changes from a bold, imaginative rulebreaker into his mentor's sycophant and a conformist. His goal changes from creating life to getting married. This plot turn can't be more unoriginal. Boooring!!!!

A large part of the second half of the movie is set in a castle where Dr. F's father has six, count them six, servants. I couldn't be less interested in Dr. F's private life. And somehow villagers who are determined to rid the world of The Monster become worshipers of the very scientist who created that Monster and anoint him as the leader of the anti-Monster group. Stuuupid!!!

The story would have been far more interesting if Frankenstein told Waldman to shove it and the movie becomes a confrontation between Frankenstein and The Monster on the one side and the staid establishment on the other. The audience should have been rooting for Dr. F and The Monster.

Given the story's turn, The Monster should have been much scarier. He kills two people who were trying to harm him and innocently and accidentally kills a little girl. In other words, the movie doesn't work as a horror story after having succeeded splendidly as science fiction until the plot turn.

The plot turn also directs attention away from The Monster and toward the now boring doctor. This is devastating because the best post-turn scenes focus on The Monster trying to learn about life.

Halfway through the movie, I was considering making it my first 10. Unfortunately, the transition from science fiction to predictable romance/weak horror compels me to award it a 7.

ZWrite

Rocky (1976)

Childhood favorite holds up

[9/10 · 7 November 2007]

As a teen, "Rocky" was my favorite movie. It was, in fact, the first movie I saw without my parents. In college, I ran up the Philadelphia Museum of Art's stairs a la Rocky.

The David vs. Goliath theme is so appealing to a student that I thought over the years that I probably overrated the movie and ignored many of its flaws. That judgment was reinforced by my knowing that endless sequels had made Rocky a caricature and Sylvester Stallone did not become a quality actor. In retrospect, I thought the characters were too broad and stereotypical.

A few days ago, I analyzed the movie for the first time. I was stunned. I completely forgot how good the beginning of the movie was!! Director John Avildsen did a superb job of conveying the grittiness of Rocky's Philadelphia neighborhood and the sadness and despair of his life. I was interested in the character from the start as he fights for a $50 prize, roams the neighborhood alone, and is thrown out of his locker because he failed to fulfill his potential.

Stallone is outstanding portraying Rocky as tough and dumb, but likable. He refuses to break the thumbs of a man who could not pay his loan shark boss and tries to help a man lying in the street and a troubled girl. Frankly, I did not recall the depth of Rocky's kind-hearted tough guy character.

I didn't forget the excellent conflicts and dialogues between the major characters – Rocky, girlfriend Adrian, her brother, manager Mickey, and boxing champ Apollo Creed. However, the scenes depicting Rocky and Adrian's first date were even better than I recalled because Talia Shire is very convincing portraying a woman afraid to be with a man and Stallone's pangs of loneliness on Thanksgiving and awkwardness around women are very endearing.

I must admit, though, that I recalled Rocky's rejection of Mickey's offer to manage him as a dialogue. In fact, it was two monologues – and the movie's best scene. Each monologue brilliantly captured the talker's frustration that no one had ever helped him achieve his goals. Mickey spoke first, begging Rocky for a chance at age 76. Rocky responded by essentially kicking him out of his apartment and venting at a door. The scene meant more to me in middle age than it did as a teen.

But, "Rocky" is definitely flawed. I found Adrian's post-first date transformation from a near mute afraid to enjoy life to a vibrant, articulate woman now that she no longer wears glasses as absurd as I did in 1976. And how did her vision improve? Contact lenses were costly then.

There are two boxing-related flaws that I didn't notice in 1976. One is that I've always thought the match was on July 4 and Rocky trained like a maniac for seven months. Since the match was on Jan. 1, his transformation into a freakishly-conditioned Superman is less plausible.

I've also always thought that Creed won easily because the announcers were astonished that Rocky stayed on his feet. I never noticed that the result was actually a 2-1 decision. The focus at the end of the movie was rightly Rocky lasting 15 rounds and then looking for Adrian rather than listening to the result. The fact that the match was actually close detracts from the excellent ending.

"Rocky II" was pointless. "Rocky III" was better than "II," but essentially about a celebrity that I didn't care much about. I never watched the others, but it's refreshing to know that the first "Rocky" was as good as I remembered it. I gave it a 9.

ZWrite

The Caine Mutiny (1954)

Flawed movie, but some very gripping scenes

[7/10 · 17 September 2007]

Humphrey Bogart's performance in "The Caine Mutiny" was the second-best of his career. Only his performance in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," one of Hollywood's best-ever, was better. And, yes, I did watch "Casablanca."

Bogart's outstanding acting makes the movie's gripping scenes even more compelling. The best scene is his falling apart on the witness stand – a sort of subdued version of Jack Nicholson's memorable breakdown in "A Few Good Men." The other great scenes were when Van Johnson takes over command of the ship as Bogart vacillates during a typhoon and the hunt for the missing strawberries.

Throughout "Caine," the writers do a good job of showing how Bogart's Captain Queeg is an incompetent officer and one of those petty jerks everybody hates – a compulsive authoritarian who tries to make up for his lack of substance by focusing on rules so he is always right and everyone else is wrong.

The confrontation between Bogart and his subordinates, the disputes between the officers about what to do about Queeg, the transformation of the Van Johnson character, and the canniness and cowardice of the Fred MacMurray character are also positive elements in the movie.

All this makes the ending absolutely infuriating. Jose Ferrer's speech is beyond ludicrous. It's based on two premises – MacMurray was the brains behind the mutiny and the mutiny was unjustified. Half the movie is about MacMurray laying the groundwork for the mutiny so Ferrer's conclusion is news only to himself.

The second premise is just dumb. Bogart had acted incompetently and cowardly at sea twice before the typhoon – and blamed others for his mistakes. Ferrer's declaration that Johnson would not have had to act against Bogie during the typhoon if officers had months earlier accepted their captain's plea for help – and Johnson agreeing with Ferrer – makes no sense. Lives were in danger during the typhoon. Period.

The conclusion has the stench of U.S. Navy censorship.

I noticed that many IMDb posters rip the romance between the young officer and his girlfriend. This is interesting since there are countless 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s movies with unconvincing romances that appear to be patronizing attempts to win over female viewers, and many of those romances are barely criticized.

The romance in this movie is less distracting and time-consuming than many others. At least I can see what the writers were trying to do – make us interested in the young officer so we viewers care about what happens to him later on. This works up to a point. It ultimately does NOT work -- not because the romance is uninteresting, but because the officer's character is NOT developed. He is an uninteresting observer for most of "Caine," and he is a milquetoast when he takes stands on principle later in the film.

Robert Francis' lack of development in "Caine" compares unfavorably to the transformations of Jack Lemmon and Charlie Sheen in "Mister Roberts" and "Platoon." It doesn't help that Francis is not a good actor.

The writers should have spent more time developing Francis' character instead of using 35 minutes before Bogart enters the movie or they should have downplayed Francis and focused on Van Johnson instead.

I gave "Caine" a 7.

ZWrite

P.S. -- By the way, nominating the actor who played Queeg's predecessor instead of MacMurray for a Best Supporting Oscar is preposterous.

A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

Eccentric characters make this movie a joy

[8/10 · 26 June 2007]

I almost always base my decision on the quality of a movie on its plot – possibly because I'm a professional writer/editor.

Using my own criteria, "A Fish Called Wanda" shouldn't be rated a good movie. The number of plot holes is enormous and, frankly, I didn't even care who got the hidden jewels or even whether the thieves were caught and/or found guilty.

However, I am giving this movie an 8. Why? In one word, "characters." I'm really hard-pressed to think of a movie with more eccentric characters. These characters made "Wanda" an enjoyable movie.

I read at least a few reviews that said this movie wasn't funny. By conventional standards, it wasn't because the one-liners and comedy bits weren't particularly strong on their own. What made this movie funny was its characters, their quirky personalities, and their actions. The four primary characters were all extreme.

Kevin Kline's character stood out because of his extreme stupidity, impulsiveness, pushiness, and rudeness. Michael Palin's character was extreme in his love for animals and stuttering problems. John Cleese's character was involved in an extremely repressed marriage. Jamie Lee Curtis' character was extremely seductive and had a strange passion for foreign languages.

The writers did a great job of creating excellent character conflicts based on the characters' quirks. Kline ate Palin's fish. Cleese was easy prey for Curtis' come-ons. Kline's inability to grasp that girlfriend Curtis was play-acting to get the jewels led him to attack Cleese. Overlaying these individual tussles was a Brit vs. American conflict that provided lots of laughs.

For those who don't know, Kline won an Oscar for his performance. In addition, I should point out that the dialogue was often very smart – particularly when the very attractive Curtis explained how stupid Kline was.

I know many people objected to the killing of animals. As I sit here looking at my cute Beagle, I can honestly say that these scenes were funny. They weren't funny because dogs and fish were killed. They were funny because of how the quirky and extreme characters reacted to the deaths.

I watched "Wanda" one more time than I usually watch a movie to make sure the plot holes I perceived weren't my own fault. I shouldn't have bothered. "Wanda" deserves to have a point deducted because of its plot holes. If it was a drama, these holes would have led me to give this movie a thumbs-down, but it's a comedy so I rate it as a top-notch movie.

ZWrite

The Naked Spur (1953)

More of a character study than a "Western"

[8/10 · 23 June 2007]

I am tempted to write that "The Naked Spur" is one of the best Westerns I've seen, but it is not really a Western.

This 1953 movie is really a character study like "The Breakfast Club" or "The Big Chill." Except for "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," I've never watched a movie with so few characters. There are only five who speak plus several native-Americans who appear for only one scene.

The presence of so few characters gives viewers a chance to get to know all of them, and the writers do a great job of introducing the characters, developing them, getting inside their heads, and portraying their conflicts. This character portrayal dovetails neatly with the plot – an 1866 bounty hunter captures a murderer after persuading two other people to help him without mentioning the huge reward and then has to march the killer from Colorado to Kansas with his angry new cohorts.

The writing was so good that I found myself rooting for the villain although the actor, Robert Ryan, delivers a subpar performance by smiling constantly and not coming across as threatening. Basically, I was rooting for a David whose hands were shackled and his quasi-girlfriend against three Goliaths with guns. If he could time travel, I would have loved to see Jack Nicholson as the villain.

The fact that the Goliaths are all flawed and plotting against each other makes the movie even better. In addition, Jimmy Stewart is the best actor ever.

Non-Western fans will like this movie a lot, but there's also something for Western aficionados. There is relatively little action, but the action at the start is very interesting and the action scene near the end is one of the best I've ever seen. The end-of-movie action is enhanced by gorgeous photography and scenery in the Rockies.

On the negative side, there were some slow moments in the middle of the movie and, maybe it's me, but budding romances just don't work in most old movies that I've watched. Women are treated as too needy and too willing to fall for every guy they see. It's just not credible that drop-dead gorgeous, very young women like Grace Kelly, Kim Novak, and, in this movie, Janet Leigh will fall for a middle-aged and gawky Jimmy Stewart who has lots of problems.

I gave the very similar "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" a 9 and "The Naked Spur" an 8 because the former was a great character study that wasn't diluted by a non-credible romance while the latter included such a romance.

In addition, Stewart's decision to choose Leigh over the money at the end was too sudden. Perhaps, a meatier conversation between the two during the middle of the movie would have made Stewart's turnaround more explicable.

ZWrite

Harold and Maude (1971)

Maude is not who she seems

[6/10 · 18 June 2007]

I have never been so undecided about how to rate a movie.

"Harold and Maude" deserves a 10 for originality, black humor, storytelling, and chutzpah. On the other hand, it deserves a 1 for ickiness and its trite expressions of "live life" philosophy.

As the end of the movie approached, I felt inclined to give it an 8, but I changed my rating to a 6 and a "thumbs down" because of the ending.

My review includes spoilers as I explain my logic. Here's my problem with the movie – Maude's suicide contradicts the entire point of everything that happened earlier!!! If she died via a car accident or stroke or if she revealed a terminal illness, I would have given the movie an 8.

The writers exhibit thinking that infuriates me. They do NOT understand the difference between personality and character. I see this on the news whenever there is a murder and neighbors say the suspect is a "nice guy" because he starts conversations with them, smiles, and is friendly.

In fact, the suspect has a nice personality and the neighbors generally know little about his character. The same is true here. Maude appears happy and nice because she is extroverted. In fact, the movie's conclusion reveals she is unbelievably selfish and/or depressed.

She is very healthy so there is no reason to kill herself. The writers foreshadow Maude's suicide because she implies she will kill herself early in the movie. "It's all going to be over after Saturday," she says, a line I forgot about until the end. Yet, for most of the rest of the plot she befriends Harold, goes out with him, and responds in kind to his "I love you" remarks.

In short, Maude is a bad person – not the lover of life who inspires Harold.

I will NEVER accept the premise that dancing, as Harold does at the end, means a person changed. This was also a flaw in "Zorba The Greek" when the Brit acts like a wimp as his girlfriend is killed by a mob and the house of Zorba's wife is ransacked. Yet, I'm supposed to believe he changed because he danced. He was MORE wimpy at the end of the movie than he was at the start.

If Harold has a brain, his experience with Maude will make him MORE negative about life.

It's difficult to give a 6 to a movie I gave a "thumbs down," but I loved the eccentric supporting characters, the audacity of Maude's teenlike rowdiness, Harold's fake suicides, the non-dates with young women, and the character conflicts, especially the Harold-Mom relationship.

I watched the movie a second time to see if Harold ever talked to his mother before he briefly told her near the end that he was marrying Maude. The Mom spoke dozens, maybe hundreds, of lines to Harold. The son's only response was "I have a sore throat" – a line he delivered in front of several people. He NEVER responded to his Mom in one-on-one encounters.

The "Graduate On Steroids" was enjoyable, but failed because its creators do NOT understand that personality does NOT equal character.

ZWrite

Paths of Glory (1957)

The best movie that I previously never heard of!!

[9/10 · 13 April 2007]

I watch about 100 movies per year, but I NEVER heard of "Paths of Glory" until I recently saw it on a list of great movies.

It is the BEST movie that I have never heard of and one of the best movies I have ever seen!! I'm stunned that I knew nothing about it.

As an anti-war movie, "Paths of Glory" rivals "All Quiet on the Western Front" and "Dr. Strangelove." It has one great scene after another. Most of the scenes consist of two- or three-person conversations that include very smart dialogue, sharp character portrayals, and conflicts that induce viewers to root for some people and root against others.

During the movie, I became depressed when something bad happened to the good guys and happy when something bad happened to the bad guys. I can't think of too many movies that were written so well that I reacted this way.

I know many people, including myself, don't like military movies with so much action that you can't follow who has been killed and who is winning. This movie wisely has only about 10 minutes of (World War I) battlefield scenes and the result is crystal-clear.

Instead of scenes of mass killings, the writers and director Stanley Kubrick focus on the confrontations between high-level and low-level officers, an unfair court martial, and a farcical trial. The results of the action convey vividly how military leaders care more about themselves than the heroes who fight for their nation.

The movie also wisely has one central character played by Kirk Douglas. He is outstanding as a very principled and strong mid-level officer who essentially represents the perspective of viewers like ourselves. Like Douglas, we want to express moral outrage as the plot unfolds.

I almost gave this movie a 10, but I thought the ending was too sudden. I wanted it to continue. I'm also on the fence about whether I preferred this movie to either be about English soldiers or French soldiers with French accents or left as is with French soldiers who are clearly not French.

I swear I'm not normally a cheerleader for movies. In fact, I think I gave a movie that came out at about the same time a 1. The fact that Gigi won a Best Movie Oscar and "Paths of Glory" received zero nominations is a stain on Academy Award voters.

I gave "Paths" a 9.

ZWrite

Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939)

Mr. Chips' students were invisible

[5/10 · 31 January 2007]

I began watching "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" certain that I would like it. In fact, I love quiet movies about teachers and how they inspire their students to take chances, become ambitious, transform themselves academically, etc.

I really, really wanted to love this movie, but I did not.

The problem with this movie is that I know NOTHING about any of the individual students Mr. Chips taught. I don't know what their interests are, whether they are smart or dumb, what they are thinking etc. I just watched the movie and I'm not even sure I know any of their names.

For a movie like this to work, there have to be some meaningful interactions between the teacher and his or her students. There were none. I see NO evidence that Mr. Chips inspired any individual student to do anything. And I don't know what the students did other than some of them fought in World War I.

Contrast that with "Dead Poets Society" and "Mr. Holland's Opus," to name two, where five or six students stand out and are inspired by their teacher. I saw those movies several years ago and I still recall the students' stories.

This movie conveys a general sense that Mr. Chips himself was transformed after meeting his wife. Before that, he was stodgy and unpopular. Frankly, he was an incompetent teacher for 20 years and should have been fired. After his midlife romance begins, though, the students as a whole liked and respected him a lot.

But other than a couple of jokes told in front of a class of 30 students, there is nothing to justify why the students liked and respected him so much. I want to be SHOWN, not told, Mr. Chips is a great teacher. The movie also has a very timid plot and little conflict and character development.

By the way, Jimmy Stewart deserved the Best Actor Oscar for "Mr. Smith," not Robert "Mr. Chips" Donat. I gave "Mr. Chips" a 5.

ZWrite