tvsterling Reviews

Night of the Comet (1984)

Rumored Remake

[10/10 · 30 November 2019]

One of my favorite movies. Very much a product of the 80's. Young talented people put their very best into this fine movie. Lots of layers & clever lines. No slavish over explanations (big flaw in the Sci Fi genre). Strange but very palatable mix of comedy & horror. Played straight; not Camp. I hope the remake is good. The movie was never really a candidate for a sequel. After all what happens when the fires would break out in a real world & the power fails etc etc. They get away with such an upbeat ending. "We are the future of Humanity." "Yeah, isn't it great." The end of 'On The Beach' was such a downer. Such a light touch from the director; very gutsy in only his second movie. Theatre Arts are very much a group effort & he let the movie breathe. Very much a woman empowering movie too. Ultra Cute Cheerleader with a Mac-10. Beautiful young woman Kung-Foos a Zombie. Beautiful Woman Scientist takes charge & foils an evil plot single handed. Worked on this movie a little; pulling Circle Takes on the swing shift in the lab. Steely Dan has a tribute on their 'Everything Must Go' album. The lead off song;'The last Mall' has obvious references to the movie.

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

The Return of SHOWMANSHIP

[9/10 · 16 June 2018]

There are three elements I see in these new CGI Era movies which have been getting more & more powerful as the technology & The Techniques to use it mature. In my opinion Marvel Studios is very close to perfecting technique for this new Era of movies. Two of the elements are as old as movies; Music & dialogue. The third; CGI is only a couple three decades old. Previously many CGI driven movies have been dominated by Eye-Candy; Using the CGI as the main character & skimping on the rest of the movie. As an off/on computer gamer I can tell you that Eye-Candy will only get you so far. This makes for very pretty but unsatisfying movies. Call these latest Marvel Studios Movies "THE RETURN OF SHOWMANSHIP." What has been REBORN is the skillful addition of Music & Dialogue with a healthy dose of craftsmanship. Not only This Movie here but other Marvel shows such as Guardians of The Galaxy. Trademarks of classic Hollywood movies were snappy, clever dialogue, well integrated music & pure craftsmanship. Music really stands out here; this new style of movie is sometimes a MUSIC VIDEO. How many generations are we now into MTV & music videos? Some of the battle scenes with Led Zeppelins 'Immigrant Song' are absolutely stunning & they are MUSIC VIDEOS TOO. Music is every bit as powerful, no more powerful, than any CGI Eye Candy. The Guardians of the Galaxy Movies go even further in this direction. Plenty of old favorite songs (mine anyway) & lots of them. These movies ARE Musicals in a way. 'Sound of Music' has it's place but SO STICKY SWEET; man nothing Rocks in there. The old tradition of snappy Hollywood Dialogue has been sadly neglected too. I am always laughing out loud at some sly clever line in these latest Marvel Movies. Even Jeff Goldblum's voice as 'Grandmaster' cracks me up. Old 30's & 40's movies had lots of cool snappy lines. It really went downhill after The Schwarzenegger movies with their "One Big Line" like "I'll be Back. later there were not even any,"One big Lines". Doesn't take much to find & hire some good, clever writers; get a clue. Don't misunderstand me CGI has become an increasingly more powerful tool but these movies restore the balance & really advance the artform. One thing It is Very Hard for any Flesh & Blood actor to stand up to CGI & not be dwarfed by it on screen; That means Actors like Goldblum, Blanchette & Hopkins. This type of movie I call 'Rollercoaster Style'; Designed like a thrill park ride. All action, frantic action with no let-up. Makes for great old time escapism. Movies are supreme at escape. Graphic Novels also have the advantage of being totally visual in nature. GO MARVEL this is an exceedingly powerful way to harness the medium for fun & profit.

A Place to Stand (1967)

Groundbreaking But Overlooked

[10/10 · 24 April 2018]

I wanted to review this piece after watching it on U-Tube. I tracked it down after researching the gorgeous sequences in the Original 'Thomas Crown Affair.' Actually those sequences are better than this short BUT the short is the true prototype & a little appreciated step forward in film technique. It is more realistically viewed as the greatest & only step forward in Montage style editing since Eisenstein DEFINED montage with his work. The montage is the Poetry of Cinema & at it's best Poetry contains beauty & intensity of meaning an order of magnitude beyond what mere prose can accomplish. As others have pointed out Chapman's 'Multi-dynamic image technique' can compress meaning & content many times over what straight edits or even traditional Montage can accomplish. There is a dimension here beyond where the viewer can be guided in revolutionary ways thru complex material in completely new & novel directions. It is a powerful tool for the editor. For only one example; Motion can be allowed to draw attention to one of the multiple frames which then expands to fill the screen. Used with intelligence & planning there are endless possibilities without the distraction of digital "Gee Whizz" effects. Cutting tends to go faster & faster with each generation of film. Ask any older person; They will tell you that a modern film goes by too fast. Chapman pioneered a way out of this trap. More information & meaning can be logically conveyed thru this technique without overloading the viewer. As with any variation of the Montage it must be used sparingly almost like spice in cooking. In that respect 'Thomas Crown affair' strikes a fine balance & points the way. The Multi Screen sequences convey mood, subplot & glamour quickly & efficiently in a way that no other technique could accomplish. A great part of the mystique of the film comes from the compressed story information in those sequences. The spice was not applied with too heavy a hand; It Works. True advances in story telling technique in Cinema are very rare indeed & this is one.

The BFG (2016)

Brace Yourself For The Next Step

[10/10 · 30 April 2017]

I loved this movie. A beautiful & classic Fairy Tale perfectly presented. Times change & the fart jokes will just have to be tolerated. Technically it's a marvel. A true photo realistic & live action blend. The Giants are a near perfect melting of live action & CGI. The technical wizardry did NOT overpower the entertainment; perhaps the greatest wizardry of all. Sources say Spielberg knocked himself out in pioneering this great leap forward. A true master craftsman. I reviewed Tin-Tin years ago & at that time I thought this level of integration would be many more years in coming. Technology moves faster & faster. The final thought I have is one of foreboding. Soon; very, very soon, all the great stars of the past are going to return from the dead. Film is a dog eat dog business with no room for common decency. Pandora's Box has really been opened. What will you do when The Duke, Tragic Marylin, Bogart, Elizabeth Taylor, The Stooges & any other film legends who are dear to you come back as some sort of Zombies. How about Debbie Reynolds & Carrie Fisher? Will you go watch Virtual Marylin's new film? Recoil in disgust or horror? They WILL NOT be allowed to rest in peace. It is not Spielberg's fault it is only progress. BRACE YOURSELF.

If you want a sad illustration find the 'Audrey Hepburn' Commercial on U-Tube. "Audrey Hepburn Resurrected in New TV Commercial - Creepy or Cool?" This is actually old by several years & 'Audrey' looks a bit mannequin-like. IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING. Especially sad to see dear little Audrey brought back from the dead. She was a Anti-Nazi resistance fighter, Nearly starved to death, a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador. Truly a remarkable human being. Told you so.

Things are really beginning to heat up. James Dean will soon appear as "Zombie James Dean" in the upcoming Vietnam Era action film, 'Finding Jack.' It will be a minor role. Sides are being taken in the breaking controversy. It will be interesting to see how well it is executed. Only the beginning.

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

Pioneering New Style of Filmmaking

[10/10 · 9 July 2012]

Tin Tin is nothing more nor less than the eventual new prototype of motion pictures. Just like Citizen Kane it represents a watershed, a turning point. Let us compare the film to what it will replace in Spielberg's bag of tricks; The Indiana Jones series. Sad fact is Harrison Ford has, like all human beings, grown old. Not so with Tin Tin. He will be forever young, forever a youth at the threshold of all his adult power; forever fresh faced, no grey to sully the bright red cowlick, no wrinkles will ever spoil the pink smooth skin. Like John Henry vs the Steam Hammer mere flesh is bound to lose. Harrison Ford is mere inferior flesh. Tin Tin will never enter rehab. Perhaps his voice actor or his motion capture double will but they are mere company men on salary or contract & easily replaced. No pique, no fits of ego, ALL the weakness & sins of the flesh ended at a stroke. NO PRIOR COMMITMENTS. He will always OK the script and he works cheap. NO 50% of the gross for his services; The whole persona package a mere fraction of a star in his or her prime. As long as a backup of the computer models exists somewhere in any computer, anywhere even a hundred years hence there can be a Tin Tin revival whenever the public is willing to watch & be entertained by one.

Back to comparing The assumed retired Indiana Jones epics. Do you realize what the bill would have been to wrangle the cars, ships, planes & other assorted vehicles that added such variety & interest to the movie? ASTRONOMICAL. Many would have to be cheated out of less valuable cars etc & NOWHERE near the realism of the street traffic could be generated at ANY COST. Could any production company afford to crush a classic Rolls Royce Limousine such as the villain's? Crash land a Bellanca in a howling storm? The Indiana Jones movies must have allowed legions of studio carpenters & prop-makers to acquire a tidy retirement. Ditto for the costumers & make up artists.

The movie has a vast sweep of period cities & exotic locales. The bill for Security Alone in let's say, Tangier as a close guess for the sultan's palace sequence would cover the CGI for ALL the locales in the movie. Boys & girls the game is over. Movie making is a money making business & when a world class action adventure movie with non stop camera movement & virtually no limits on ANY & ALL production values can be knocked together for a mere $130,000,000 & post an immediate gross of $371,940,071 well then the writing is on the wall. Bear in mind that this film pioneered the new production style. It will be even cheaper once this is routine. The film is way outside the traditional fairy tale or fantasy realm; That is the essential difference. This new sort of photo realistic CGI might not appeal to older film audiences & a few might even reject the look but almost everyone else will be vastly entertained & THAT is the object of the exercise, to entertain. This, due to the business parameters that it shatters is the future of film.

As for the film content itself; Vastly amusing & exciting entertainment. A worthy successor to the Indiana Jones series. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

As an after thought I feel I should credit Zack Snyder's "300" as the forerunner of the new style & technology. The term 'Virtual Back Lot' has been bandied about; seems to me an apt name. However; It takes a Spielberg with his massive administrative talent to truly turn the corner & that would be "Tintin".

Memoirs of a Geisha (2005)

Not For Geisha Snobs

[9/10 · 10 May 2009]

I am a fan of Japanese silkscreen prints, many of which are wonderful portraits of famous Geisha. There are also street scenes, sumo & landscapes, lots of rain & snow. I could not help but see an homage to these prints in the film. Not a slavish copying of them but a healthy interaction between film & the spirit of those prints. Most DP's & cinematographers have a firm grounding in the fine arts & so this is no surprise. These prints were the first mass medium, predating our newspapers by at least a hundred years. This is why the film is such a visual feast. Of course the fact that the subject (geisha) are a costumers & makeup artists dream didn't hurt. The four main geisha were played by women truly beautiful & talented enough to have been real famous geisha of the old flower and willow world. The fact that they are not Japanese, even worse mostly Chinese, puts an unfair political cast on the film. They were obviously the best actresses for the parts even though Japanese national pride was supposed to be ruffled a bit. The average non involved Japanese movie goer did not seem to be offended. To me the film is truly enchanted, a hypereal evocation of one of the essential oriental mysteries. If you want point by point pedantic illustration of this unique cultural event rent a documentary. If you want the spirit this movie is more than adequate. The old Japanese Prints (The Floating World ) & the unspoiled Geisha world died together at about the time of the movie along with what is loosely termed 'Old Japan'. It is, of course, a three hanky chick flick but certainly not as bitchy & sobby as the worst of those. More of a historical drama with chick flick undertones. Truly great film.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

New Formula Movie

[10/10 · 2 November 2008]

These movies follow a formula invented? by Spielberg. Setup,Creepshow, carchase, carchase (or is it creepshow again) then carchase or creepshow (repeat as much as you like in varying order until resolution) 'The End'(or is it). Sprinkle generously with fights too. Actually not to put it down. IT WORKS. Good old time escapism, that's what movies are all about. Actually the old time movie serials like Radar Men From The Moon or Flash Gordon probably invented this style. Spielberg has arguably carried it to perfection. The old time serial guys didn't have either the budget or the special effects technology to properly execute their dreams. This particular series mines nostalgia very well. In the current example, 50's & Cold War nostalgia. Don't get me wrong. I really like the Indiana Jones Movies, all of them. A lot of class in this one by bringing back Harrison Ford & Karen Allen. Would have been very tempting to just dump them a La the James Bond films. All of this series are hyperkenetic too. Not one instant is wasted on setting mood just for itself. No clumsy fiddling around with establishing look backs or plot points. Any stuff like that is neatly placed at just the right spot during a creepshow or carchase. The whole style reminds me of a roller coaster ride. No deeper MESSAGE that I could see in this one or any of the others either. If you must do a MESSAGE "lay it between the lines" (Peter, Paul & Mary). Shows more class that way. This is very useful. If you don't take a stand on any current or real controversy in a film you don't stir up potential customers. It's easier for the unsophisticated to understand good guys vs bad guys anyway. If anybody is offended by a hidden message you always have plausible denial. Great movie, great escapism. What happens next to Indy? Does he get killed in the next one or just become more grey & professorial? Maybe even time to just let it go.

In Country (1989)

Stereotypes Go Touchy, Feely

[17 May 2008]

How to begin. First, the good. I agree with others that Bruce Willis & Emily Lloyd were excellent. Most early Bruce is that awful smirk or nothing. I think Miss Lloyd was actually better as the girl. The movie is a sincere attempt to cover the ground of the Vietnam thing but all it really ends up doing is wallowing in a more varied assortment of stereotypes than usual. This is nice vicarious fun for those who were not involved. As far as I can tell I'm the only Vietnam ERA veteran to comment (not a combat veteran thank god). I like to flatter myself by thinking that I can comment in some measure for them. We are veterans of an ERA not a war. Most of them (the combat veterans) probably can't stand to watch let alone comment. This last bit is what really makes me hate this movie in spite of the good part above so listen up. At the most emotional part of the movie where Willis is getting teary eyed at the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial with the music track building to a soft, emotional crescendo what does Mr Willis place beside the Bronze Star Medal at the wall? That's right he places (reverently) a pack of Camel cigarettes. This is what's known as a 'placement'. For those who don't know this means that the cigarettes are a paid commercial message like a spot on TV. I have to admit this is the most professional, artful, perfectly done placement I have ever seen. So good in fact that it becomes almost invisible even though it's right in front of you. A classic placement, really one for the textbooks. Also totally ruthless. It takes a third rate filmmaker like me to spot it properly & reveal it for what it is. This is beyond disrespect. Mr Willis character should have urinated on the wall instead.

Species (1995)

Russ Meyer Should Have Directed

[6/10 · 20 April 2008]

Meyer could have made this a truly great movie. 'Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill' meets 'Alien'. The director is a good, competent VERY COMMERCIAL director but Meyer had the fire in the belly. Also his specialty was this sort of sexy death stuff. Could have been truly memorable instead of merely solidly watchable. The movie should have had emphasis squished around here & there; First, we see way too little of young Sil. Her character development needed to be extended by at least a sequence or two. All the neat nuances of daddy (Kingsley) vs daughter conflicts could have been brilliantly riffed on. The young actress (Michelle Williams)was way capable of doing this. All sorts of other delicious bits about the pre-pubescent American girl pop into mind almost unbidden. But no all we get is a little train ride & then the metamorphosis. I shudder to think what old Russ could have made happen here. Second, Grown up Sil's romp thru the LA club scene should have been the whole rest of the movie; death sequence & all. I mean what's up with this cave thing? Caves are such CHEAP sets. When I was dragging scenery around on the old 'Santa Barbara' series they got into a stupid cave thing about the time they canceled it. Half the stuff in the old 'Flash Gordon' movie series was done in cave sets because they're so CHEAP. The final hunt & alien pregnancy thing would have been so wonderfully gory (& incidentally so much better for some great comments on the people mating scene) if staged in disco sets. The alien birth on a bottom lighted & strobed dance floor; WHOA what a cinematic moment. The tyke scuttles off into the shadows. In short the movie had way too modest of a scope. "Don't be no ant man, an ant man has low horizons." My personal favorite Gumpism.

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970)

Good Mirror of the 60's

[6/10 · 1 April 2007]

This is a lot like the 60's were. The strange mix of hedonism & high ideals really is what the 60's were all about. Many of us weren't quite that wild but a surprising percentage were (minus the murders of course). Most recovered but some are still living under a bridge near you. The streets are far more cynical & deadly now. I imagine the younger readers understand this all too well. If you don't, not to worry you soon will. This film would have been made just after the Tate-LaBianca murders & I see the beginning-end framing scene as a ripoff & an acknowledgment of this; the true end point of the peace love thing. Since this movie is perhaps the ideal statement,epitaph & testament to those long gone times you will indulge me a few observations. First, we had good reasons. The Cold War was at it's peak; nobody knew if the world had a future. Thus there was a kind of party frenzy that accompanies many wars. The WW-II crowd will know all about this; eat, drink & be merry for tomorrow you die. Second, there were just so MANY of us. They don't call us the Baby Boomers for nothing. There was no place for us. Our parents (the WW-IIers) were living in happily ever after land (like the movies from their times said to). After all they had paid their dues in the War & the Depression. They were getting older & had no stomach for another fight to protect their nearly grown kids. We were on our own. Third, we were so media soaked (as all of us are now & ever increasingly) that we felt an enormous need to live a real (not vicarious or virtual) life. The Beats had pointed this out to us & Warhol was frantically trying to warn society of it's dangers. It is a lesson that needs to be taken to heart. This stealing away of the individual's life is one of Islam's main beefs with our Megamedia culture. Look at the Iraqis in the news. You see a more genuine face; not partly copied from some movie or TV show. More real. Their speech is not spiced with advertising slogans or catch phrases from some sitcom. Is our way really that much better?

The end narration with it's moral comments on the work itself goes way beyond what the soaps would try to get away with. In a way it talks down to the audience. The sad fact is at that time we probably needed it all spelled out for us like that. Some kinds of wisdom only come with age. The message seems to be leave the media dictated life truly behind; move 'Beyond The Valley of The Dolls'. Our favorite game was "Cooler Than Thou" but the Beat idea of cool went completely over our posing & posturing heads. This movie probably did too.

I think that soon with all the cameras & U-Tube etc the Megamedia Culture will die out or at least change into something more evolved. I hope that something is more real rather than more conceited. (Sad to say now several years later the reality shows have fully arrived & they are more conceited. The horrible mutant offspring of Warhol's experiments like 'Chelsea Girls' escaped from the lab.)

One last observation. A strange case of life following art unfolded with the Phil Spector trial. The character of 'Z-Man' is supposed to be based on him.

Battlefield Earth (2000)

Not That Bad But Messed up by What?

[5/10 · 7 January 2007]

This movie reminded me of Star Wars but with plot holes big enough to fly a Battlestar thru. The makings are there for a good old fashioned Space Opera & the plot holes could have been fixed or minimized. I have always said that most movies are designed to separate a twelve year old lad from his allowance & this movie, even with it's flawed script, could do that. I have no knowledge of Scientology nor do I wish to have any (that goes for most other religions as well) but it does seem to me that the spectre of Scientology looms over the movie. There seems to be an enmity towards the film that is unjustly transferred from the controversy surrounding the religion. Even with better execution the movie would have had to get past this controversy thing. It is almost impossible to do a remote postmortem on the production. I do think the finger can be reasonably pointed at the top executives & perhaps narrowed down to poor counsel to them or excessive interference by them. Many good stories & books have been lost in translation to the movie medium by the same management problems. I actually found the film to be watchable enough but then I was raised on cheap 50s monster movies. There are monumental plot holes in many of them too so I guess I have a bigger tolerance than a younger & more sophisticated audience. I for one feel sorry that Travolta lost so much money on the project. One last curious fact. Don't I remember the remote control explosive collar thing being used by real world crooks a few years back? I guess that proves that life imitates art.

Three Amigos! (1986)

My Theory of Why People Don't Like It

[10/10 · 4 June 2006]

I have come to believe that many people put down this obvious masterpiece because it makes them uncomfortable. Like every other part of the film this is on several levels. First, Steve Martin's humor (he is billed as head writer) is difficult for many people. People who are uptight have trouble with his 'Jerk' humor; much like the other great jerk, Jerry Lewis. Second, the film deliberately breaks the invisible barrier between 'them' on the stage or in the movie & us; the watchers. Things like switching to the sound stage hokey set for the camp scene are calculated to rub a sore spot on those who must have total continuity of style & no bending of the illusion of a real life experience. We call these people unsophisticated (there are other less kind terms). All these 'change-ups' in style, back references to the fact that this is only a movie & bending of the rules of continuity/ suspension of dis-belief are tailor made to get under the skin of those who cannot separate themselves from the work itself. I imagine that the 'true believers' out there find the film extremely uncomfortable to watch.

The humor in the film is amazingly plentiful & runs the gamut from boffo belly laugh physical humor thru delicious sexy lines to very sophisticated word plays. I can't off hand think of another film that displays this remarkable range. In keeping with the 'change-up' I was talking about there are many heartfelt, even tender, references to early film-making & Hollywood. There are many humanity type touches in little bits between the players all of whom, right down to the least bit actor are excellent & perfectly cast. I believe that there was competition & inspiration going on between the three comedy leads & this illuminated the rest of the cast & inspired them to greater heights too.

If I could belabor a couple of great truths illustrated by the film. I specially liked the part where the Amigos (admitted devout cowards) rally the townspeople to defeat El Guapo. It's a simple thing but true throughout history; you have to stand together & conquer your fear to free yourselves from oppression. One of America's great core principles. Also what do you think of the naive belief of the heroine in the Amigos. Does she have the ultimate problem with suspension of dis-belief or does she see something no one else does? Not a few men have reached their fullest potential because a good woman believed in them.

Finally , Steve Martin stands out as the prime moving force in the film. My personal belief is that the film is his masterpiece. I firmly believe too that the film will stand the test of time.

The Mothman Prophecies (2002)

Slow Beginning & Poorly Developed Mothman Character

[5/10 · 27 May 2006]

First the easy part. The movie got off to too slow of a start. Always the kiss of death. But, you know I have no clever fix for that except tighten the hell out of the first sequence & maybe use the gained time to fix flaw #2 the poor character development of Mothman. For the monster in a basically monster movie (especially a rather intellectual, spiritual & mysteriously motivated monster) his character development is sadly neglected. The only credit for Mothman is his voice, the director Mark Pellington, who had a speaking role only & a bit part as the bartender. Big, Big, Big mistake.'The Creature From The Black Lagoon', had a real person (2 of them)in a rubber suit & they brought a special something that a special effects monster could never match. Same with the original version of 'The Thing'. This is a special effects only monster (done with voice-over) & it shows. 'Hello it's long distance calling & guess what it's me the monster again.' If they only had enough sense to put a decent actor in a Mothman suit & run with it they could have developed as chilling a monster as Hannibal the Cannibal in 'Silence of the Lambs'. But no, they had to squander the whole special effects budget on the bridge collapse. I read in the trivia about several times we are allowed to glimpse the Mothman but you know half of those were too short & poorly inserted/shot to read visually & I missed most of them. Overall the movie is not bad but not really good either. Not as good as it could have been.

I'm going to have to read the book. I have seen the Mothman in other tales of the unknown, usually under Alien Animals, he's something of a standard article. The time & space juggling stuff could have been handled better; this is what leads to the complaints of the movie being confusing. They are a variation on the flashback & flashforward idea & those techniques are always risky business at best.

I have one little nugget to share about the hints that the monster is somehow above & beyond our ken. There is a book called 'Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions' by the mathematician, Edwin A. Abbot. But what has this to do with Mothman? And well you might ask. Well, in a nutshell the book is about what happens when a being that lives in a higher dimension than you & me attempts to communicate with us. What the deal would be is that Mothman lives fully in the fourth dimension (time) whereas we live fully in only the three familiar dimensions & only get a distorted & imperfect view of the fourth. The book is not at all stodgy or intimidating. It's also short & cheap. I highly recommend it.

One final thought. I think Mothman would be an outsider among his own kind. Somehow driven to observe & interfere/help in our existence while the rest of his kind could really give a damn. Maybe it's his hobby.

War of the Worlds (2005)

What Was He Thinking?

[5/10 · 13 February 2006]

This movie is such a waste: not only of time, talent & money; but of a classic story. Now that Spielberg has poisoned the well nobody else can attempt to do it right for at least another 10 years. It doesn't even come close to the 1953 version. That version is one of the most cherished films of it's era. I give it a 5 because it's watchable enough but only 'watchable' from a director of his caliber; that's sad. I won't go into details, others have done far better than I could. Let me presume to tell the director what he should have done. First & foremost lose the pseudo-psychological family troubles subplot. People go to movies to lose their cares & escape for a while, not to be lectured to. Wells message in his story was more of a caution against man's lack of unity & of the unknown dangers of a suddenly very, very big & hostile universe. That's message enough. Second, the movie should have been set in the time that Wells lived & wrote. That's right make it a period movie. All the nitpicking over the science we now know is neatly avoided, the period setting would add interest & modern special effects would shine ever so much more brightly. If you can't do it right don't mess with it, these great stories belong to all of us. This movie barely avoids breaking up into a series of episodes. It was made quickly & strictly for the money & it shows. The movie is such a hacked up pretentious mess; you don't want to get me started.

The Silver Streak (1934)

Zeit-Gheist Movie for the 30's

[7/10 · 24 July 2005]

This movie really echoes the spirit of it's time. Everything then was progress & technology. The plot is the worst part of the film. It is terribly predictable & hackneyed. The film is also way short; 72 minutes for the version I have (barely 5 reels). The scenes at Hoover Dam could easily have been expanded to develop atmosphere & the brother/friend's character. The dam scenes are very interesting & show a human side to the massive project. Rail fans such as myself seek out this film (getting it is not easy) for the footage of the famous Pioneer Zephyr. This train is the forerunner of the French GTV & the Japanese Super Trains among many others. It was a technological marvel of it's time. The train has survived & is on display (magnificently restored) at The Chicago Museum of Science & Industry in a specially built vault below street level. There is an excellent use of montage early in the film as the father sees the history of railroading in his mind's eye. It is very well integrated into the story & not as 'In Your Face' as most montages are. The acting style has that curiously stiff feel of many of the early sound films. I think it has more to do with the director's uncertainty in the new technology than with the cast's talent. None of the cast were ever big time but they are attractive & reasonably well suited for their parts. I was pleasantly surprised to find it watchable. I had thought I would have to fast forward to the train footage that I bought the film to get.

The Beast of Yucca Flats (1961)

Last Laugh

[1/10 · 15 January 2005]

This film is really bad but I would like to point out two things which might redeem it somewhat. First, the many & varied techniques for avoiding lip synched sound are positively breath taking. Just because the production company could not afford a portable recorder doesn't mean they didn't know how to use one (if they could have afforded it). For anyone who has ever been stuck having to save a mis-shot scene the film is a goldmine of clever techniques for avoiding showing people's mouths when they speak a line. Second, this film was made very, very cheap. I would venture to guess that the negative cost was ninety percent or better of the budget with most of the rest for food & motel. Most of the actors were probably paid a token amount. Films like this were made for the second 'feature' on the drive in marquee. The drive in manager was looking for cost effectiveness & he knew his audience well. The couples were into 'heavy petting' by the time the second feature started. The guys in cars were passing around the beer their uncle bought them & loved to laugh & hoot at these films as much as we do today. In short this film was made to fit the rigid economics of it's time & purpose. It is fascinating to watch the film cleverly totter along the edge of coming apart into a melange of unrelated scenes. It never does. It maintains a shaky but believable continuity. This is not an accident. It relates to the core purpose of producing the product at the cheapest possible cost. The first scene is an exception to this. A strange, unrelated shower strangling. Confusing, but it sure does get your attention. I have come to believe that this scene is a cheap ripoff of Psycho which came out a year earlier. Both this scene & the soft porn shots of the sheriff's wife were tailor made for still promos & to slip by the censor. They even get away with a 54 minute run time.

This is where the Last Laugh comes in. This film made money in the most ruthless & cheap part of the film business in it's time frame; & it continues to make money today. Yes, people still buy or rent it to hoot at because it's so bad; Just like we did in the sixty's when it came out (re-named & re-released several times). This classic stinker may not be part of the "Art" of film but it sure is part of the business of film. The producer/director got both your money & the last laugh.

Left Behind II: Tribulation Force (2002)

PLEASE Excuse These Zealots

[3/10 · 19 December 2004]

All the rest has been said about the cheap budget, the off pacing & generally mediocre (not really bad) quality. Perhaps the books are more coherent I can't say because I haven't read them. As a reasonable Christian I have to say that I am both embarrassed by & ashamed of the forced confession of the 'Great Jewish Scholar'. Whether it was part of the books or not is beside the point. There is a big difference between a book & a movie; the former is much less public & accessible. The writings of St John(Revelations)are among the most ecstatic, dramatic & cryptic of any world religion. Every generation of Christians, especially those of certain unhealthy turns of thought, read them too well & too often. I offer this as a lame excuse to the many good Jewish people who have been offended by this film. Our religion is prone to encourage this type of zealotry. As a further clarification for Jews please bear in mind that we mourn the loss of our Messiah (no joyful anticipation of his coming) & we await the second coming in fear & awe. Again my profound apology. This is certainly a bad time for all the religions which worship the one true God.

Elvira: Mistress of the Dark (1988)

Perfect Movie of it's Type

[10/10 · 19 September 2004]

I don't doubt that the critics panned this movie, especially the artsy fartsys who need a laxative. This is a great vehicle movie in the tradition of Abbot & Costello or more recently Don Knotts. It won't shake the world or change movies forever. What it will do is entertain. When all is said & done that's the most important thing anyway. Watch this movie & forget your troubles. It even has a simple & kind moral message at no extra charge. I always loved Elvira's TV show when I lived in LA. She did not really steal her schtick from Vampira any more than Vampira did from the original, Theda Bara. This sort of mythic character belongs to whoever does it best; & Cassandra Peterson does it best. Long live Elvira; we need more of these kind of movies. There are never enough. The villain, William Morgan Sheppard, was also excellent. He exudes a wonderful refined malice. I could find no technical faults. The execution is as close to flawless as the art form gets. My profound compliments to the director,James Signorelli,& all his crew.

East of Shanghai (1931)

Purest Expression of Hitchcock's Romance Formula

[6/10 · 18 September 2004]

This movie is interesting to me because of it's concentrating on Hitchcock's romance formula which runs through most of his films. In this film it IS the story. Hitch's recurring theme of romance is the partnership of man & woman; the way that partnership is formed, renewed & nurtured. I have always liked his concept of love & romance. It greatly enriches his films. It is a truer & nobler view of this part of life than is usually seen. I like to think that it mirrors the relationship of him & his wife (billed in the titles as Alma Reville; her maiden name). There is certainly more than a hint of things to come. The hero obsesses in much the way as the master did over several of the women he made stars of. I would imagine that Alma had to play much the same role as Joan Barry at some point. Oh well, Hitch was Hitch. He was supposed to be a cruel practical joker too. The movie starts out way too slow for modern audiences. Hang in there or fast forward if you can't stand it. The structure is quite interesting in that it is a hybrid of the silent & sound movie. The first sequence is silent & music is cleverly used in the bit with the umbrellas. All thru the movie portions are silent with faux sync or other tricks. Sometimes the sound quality is awful but bear in mind that getting ANY sound at all was a technical feat in those days. Could probably be cleaned up with Cakewalk (sound program) or similar. Somebody should make the effort. The film lab work too is less than stellar. I have worked the film labs & I really think some of the footage was developed in strong British tea. All in all a quirky & somewhat dated film but good for those who are studying the master.

Full Frontal (2002)

Proof of Concept Falls Short

[5/10 · 17 August 2004]

Rented this film after reading an interview in DV Magazine with Soderbergh. Evidently the film was a concept; to play the visual qualities of film against those of digital video, & to try to integrate the 'Reality Show' idea into a feature film. The film has a few good moments but comes off confusing & visually ugly. I have worked in both film & video. Video is still inferior to film in terms of visual quality but it doesn't have to be ugly. There is lots of footage in the film that is just plain ugly thru run & gun style shooting carelesness. A little more craft in shooting the video would have kept it technically in bounds & still allowed the video quality to express itself. While I'm at it a major mistake was shooting the video with only one cameraman (Soderbergh himself). This is a major advantage of video; cheap multi-camera shooting is one of the great benefits. Double teaming this excellent cast with two good cameramen on these small self-focusing cameras could have produced some awesome cutting material. A tragic mistake. There are also lightweight gymbal camera mounts for these cameras which make beautiful floating camera moves. They could really have helped the hand held camera. Even though the film doesn't quite work I have to hand it to the director for trying. It would be easy to back off the cutting edge thru fear. Hitchcock did proof of concept stuff with 'Rope', nobody ever did that again but the film wasn't a failure either. It's all about guts. I think the reason for the big name cast was that they wanted to try to break some new ground too. Maybe just making lots of money gets boring (although personally I can't see why). The best acting was by Catherine Keener. She got to develop a full & interesting character. Close behind & neck & neck were David Hyde Pierce & Blair Underwood. I also really liked Nicky Katt as Hitler. I agree with others that his role & the producer's should have been expanded; especially his. 101 minutes run time leaves 19 minutes to play around with (120 standard US film). That's lots of time. The article also said that there were some hidden & fully candid cameras used. I wish I could tell where or even if any of that was used. I say reload & try again. Hell even more radical. Shoot the whole thing with hidden cameras. What always kills avant guarde experiments is lack of good actors & there was no lack here.

Carnival of Souls (1962)

Only in America

[8/10 · 7 August 2004]

Films like this only happen in America. We invented the art form & we feel it in our bones. Germany, Sweden, France, Italy make a film like this; sweat, cry, rend their shirts & ruminate for years. In America we make them on vacation, all out do or die, get screwed by the lab & a cheesy distributor & true genius vanishes without a ripple. That's the breaks in America; no other country ever was or ever will come close. I agree with the others mostly. It is not a Twilight Zone it is a complete film. On a par with the best European art films. The eerie atmosphere reminded me of Cocteau's Orpheus. Watch it if you liked this film. It is, of course, a much greater film (Orpheus that is) but Orpheus is the mature work of a realized genius with all the resources. Maybe I imagined this but the director pulled a truly brilliant stunt in keeping the star confused (because that was perfect for her character) & simultaneously playing the lead zombie himself (her nemesis). It makes a neat little in comment on film-making itself. Worthy of Hitchcock. A stillborn Romero at least. Let's hope that the new Digital Video & the massive home video market put a stop to us losing talent like this ever again.

The girl, Candice Hilligoss, carried the film & kept you from noticing the flaws in some of the other performances. The Guy, Sydney Berger, seems over the top today but guys were supposed to be aggressive like him in that era.

The only big technical beef I have is the car wreck. I know they could only push it over once but they should have had the guts to jerk it through the railing HARD with some aircraft cable. The gag doesn't sell. A crash camera in the car was also badly needed. Oh well. A nifty quick cut little sequence here or even a roll over of the camera would have stood the audience up at just the right time. I wish I knew how they got the ripple effect when she crosses into the dead world. I think it's in camera & it's real good, subtle too.

More of a ghost story than a pure horror film. I think why the film is so disturbing is that in the end we are all running from death & Like her we are all born to lose that race.

The Last Voyage (1960)

Rich in Human Values & An Exciting Story

[9/10 · 7 August 2004]

The other comments have restored my love for this film. Like another reviewer I saw it as a kid & never forgot. I saw a world, for the first time, where things could go terribly wrong; Disney never showed me stuff like that. And when things went wrong there were good men pulling together to make it right again. One of them was a black man. A little girl was scared but brave too. The mommy would do anything for her baby & husband to make it.

Twenty odd years later I bought it & took it to our little experimental film group at the county schools. I wanted everybody to see the realism of the approach & the human values. I also wanted them to see what you could accomplish if you took advantage of a unique setting or situation. The Ile De France was on it's way to be scrapped & this was the basis for the film. Nobody would even watch & that really bummed me out. Then I lent it to my good friend Conrad. He was a retired merchant marine officer (second). He said he laughed all the way thru because many things were not exactly realistic. One thing, the stateroom was down inside the ship not up in the superstructure where staterooms are supposed to be; and stuff like that.

Well you know they were WRONG. This is great film-making; a great story well told. Gripping from start to finish. I believe it was titled '90 Minutes to Disaster' when I saw it. I was right. So what if every little fact isn't exact. I will say that the narration is a bit annoying, that is true. When a film is a memorable event in a kid's life (more than one) it's a great film.

I have just finished reading a book called 'Collision Course' by Alvin Moscow about the Stockholm, Andrea Doria disaster in 1956. The script seems to me to contain some interesting echoes from this tragedy; the worst shipping disaster since the Titanic. Not coincidentally the Ile De France was one of the rescue ships on the scene & she was famous for rendering aid in several other shipping disasters.

A Midsummer Night's Dream (1999)

Excellent Job of a Difficult Task

[9/10 · 25 July 2004]

I'm a professional live theatre stagehand. People who are too centered on movies will have a hard time with this picture. If you could see the original first run performance of this play in Elizabethan England you would think you had stumbled into an over-costumed poetry reading. If the movie is hard to follow try & imagine what viewing that play would be like. It is the measure of Shakespeare's greatness that now 400 years later & in a medium born of photography that this greatest of fantasies still rings true. Try to show some respect; Shakespeare defined modern English. In comparing the lines to the original I thought that the adaptation was sensitive & well thought out. Simplified to fit the film medium but not sacrificing any of the truly great lines that actors drool over. The fairy world sets seemed cramped to me & reminded me of Cocteau's Beauty & the Beast. I personally found the setting of the movie in turn of century Italy kind of fun. Resetting Shakespeare in times & places other than he wrote is pretty much standard practice. The bicycles & the phonographs were amusing to me & generated some fun business for the actors. Kevin Kline was excellent as the ass. He got you to sympathize not pity or deride. In fact the whole amateur troop was memorable. Stanley Tucci was the quintessential Puck. Calista Flockhart threw everything including the kitchen sink into her part. Don't accuse her of overacting though; you'll only give away that you have never been deeply in love. Michelle Pfeiffer was radioactive beautiful, probably fatal closer than ten feet. Rupert Everett maintained perfect believability in a difficult part which is essentially support for Puck. As an answer to anyone who thought that things were a bit oversexed. The Renaissance was all about the rediscovery of the fact that people are noble & beautiful, not sinful & ugly. Shakespeare was one of the greatest products of the Renaissance. The movie is true to those Renaissance ideals. To sum up; a class act & class acts are not for everybody.