This is a movie in which a very poor script is allegedly rescued by all-star casting, good spot acting and adequate directing. There is not a shred of credibility in the plot, nor any artistry in the execution to rescue that fact, and you will be reeling from one "that would never happen" moment to another. The boys do not talk like boys talk, the hoods do not talk like hoods talk, and the decent adults may talk OK but do not behave like decent adult people behave. The movie is entirely contrived to make the preconceived scenario work out. On top of that, there is a gratuitous love interest, which doesn't even amount to that, introduced simply to keep the cast from being all-male. A melodramatic monster of a movie.
Reviews
54 Reviews
The Music Man
(2003 TV Movie)
I didn't expect to have to wear a suit of armor
18 February 2003
Reaction to this production has been very emotional and on the musicals board I have had to endure the most incredible bashing because I actually liked it.
Some people have been critical of my opinion because I had the temerity to assume they were comparing it to the classic movie version, which I adore. They weren't thinking of that at all. Yeah, right.
This was a great production of this great musical. I have no reservations. I'm sorry if the Harold Hill was not the creepy crawly we are used to in Robert Preston or that Marion was not the sweet fickle thing we knew in Shirley Jones. It is of the nature of musicals and of stage plays that were not written as screenplays in general to be open to various interpretations in various producations. I've seen a dinner theatre version of West Side Story that was better than the movie.
I just don't get the criticism, most of which is based on our image of Broderick, who will turn 40 next month. He lacks neither the talent nor the presence nor the experience to pull this off, and boy did he pull it off!
At the risk of making a ludicrous juxtaposition, a musical as great as Music Man is like Shakespeare. It has to be defeated by wilfull misinterpretation rather than lifted into triumph by faithfulness to what it is all about, because just doing it right is all that is needed. The Disney production was not a misinterpretation, and it does it right.
Some people have been critical of my opinion because I had the temerity to assume they were comparing it to the classic movie version, which I adore. They weren't thinking of that at all. Yeah, right.
This was a great production of this great musical. I have no reservations. I'm sorry if the Harold Hill was not the creepy crawly we are used to in Robert Preston or that Marion was not the sweet fickle thing we knew in Shirley Jones. It is of the nature of musicals and of stage plays that were not written as screenplays in general to be open to various interpretations in various producations. I've seen a dinner theatre version of West Side Story that was better than the movie.
I just don't get the criticism, most of which is based on our image of Broderick, who will turn 40 next month. He lacks neither the talent nor the presence nor the experience to pull this off, and boy did he pull it off!
At the risk of making a ludicrous juxtaposition, a musical as great as Music Man is like Shakespeare. It has to be defeated by wilfull misinterpretation rather than lifted into triumph by faithfulness to what it is all about, because just doing it right is all that is needed. The Disney production was not a misinterpretation, and it does it right.
Billy Two Hats
(1974)
Not bad for a western
4 February 2003
This movie gets broadcast so often that I am surprised there are no other comments. All the performances are excellent, the typical plot of pursuit of the outlaws is well handled, and the racism theme that would probably not fly if the movie were made today is realistically dealt with.
The surprise is Desi Arnaz Jr. in one of his few roles. No great acting is required of him, but he does a very creditable job, and the already handsome young man is smashing in his dark Indian make-up.
The surprise is Desi Arnaz Jr. in one of his few roles. No great acting is required of him, but he does a very creditable job, and the already handsome young man is smashing in his dark Indian make-up.
Priest
(1994)
Flawed but fascinating drama (spoilers)
31 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
To read the plot summary, one would think that this is a poorly written script with two different plots. In fact, the whole thing makes perfect sense. But one must be a bit of an insider as I am to find oneself riveted by this complex and troubling story.
The big flaw in the plot is that there is no seal on the confessional when one confesses oneself the victim rather than the criminal. I would have to guess that the same is true in England as in the US and that a priest who heard a child confess to being incestuously abused by her father would march out on the instant and report it to social services.
To really appreciate this movie, one has to have been in the position (antique for me now but the memories are there) of loving a belief system and an institution and all the smells and bells and at the same time finding it cynically unwelcoming and compromised.
The big flaw in the plot is that there is no seal on the confessional when one confesses oneself the victim rather than the criminal. I would have to guess that the same is true in England as in the US and that a priest who heard a child confess to being incestuously abused by her father would march out on the instant and report it to social services.
To really appreciate this movie, one has to have been in the position (antique for me now but the memories are there) of loving a belief system and an institution and all the smells and bells and at the same time finding it cynically unwelcoming and compromised.
Amahl and the Night Visitors
(1978 TV Movie)
If you like this, you'll like JC Superstar?
17 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
It is inconceivable to me that there is neither plot summary nor a single comment on this, perhaps because it is considered a Christmas special rather than a movie.
The plot summary includes the outcome, but I would not consider it a spoiler as suspense is not part of the picture. First, you need to know that this is an opera and every word is sung. Amahl is a crippled boy (the role is for a boy soprano) living in Palestine at the time of the birth of Jesus. He is given to making up stories to entertain himself, which frustrates his otherwise good-hearted mother. One night three kings arrive asking for a place to stay on their way to Bethlehem. They agree to take Amahl with them and suddenly he is cured and can walk.
So much for the bare facts. This wonderful work of Giancarlo Menotti has been treated shabbily and shamefully. My first thought is that it should be a holiday tradition on tv. It is the ideal vehicle to introduce very young people to classical music. In fact, that's how I got there, folks. But the production quality (not the singing, which is fine) is so dreadful that one thinks one is looking at some kind of home movie. It is scandalous that no more care was taken.
The black and white version from the 50s is superior musically and in every other respect (I'm about to go there and see if anyone ever commented on *that*), but of course will not be shown on tv again.
Bottom line: for years we didn't have Amahl (partly because Menotti himself was a doltish pest about it); then they made a color version, and they blew it, and now we don't have Amahl again.
The plot summary includes the outcome, but I would not consider it a spoiler as suspense is not part of the picture. First, you need to know that this is an opera and every word is sung. Amahl is a crippled boy (the role is for a boy soprano) living in Palestine at the time of the birth of Jesus. He is given to making up stories to entertain himself, which frustrates his otherwise good-hearted mother. One night three kings arrive asking for a place to stay on their way to Bethlehem. They agree to take Amahl with them and suddenly he is cured and can walk.
So much for the bare facts. This wonderful work of Giancarlo Menotti has been treated shabbily and shamefully. My first thought is that it should be a holiday tradition on tv. It is the ideal vehicle to introduce very young people to classical music. In fact, that's how I got there, folks. But the production quality (not the singing, which is fine) is so dreadful that one thinks one is looking at some kind of home movie. It is scandalous that no more care was taken.
The black and white version from the 50s is superior musically and in every other respect (I'm about to go there and see if anyone ever commented on *that*), but of course will not be shown on tv again.
Bottom line: for years we didn't have Amahl (partly because Menotti himself was a doltish pest about it); then they made a color version, and they blew it, and now we don't have Amahl again.
The original, and darn good
17 December 2002
If you want a plot summary, go to my comment on the 1978 remake. I cannot understand why neither version of this teleplay opera has been summarized or commented on (I am not familiar with the one in the middle starring John Cullom).
This Christmas opera was written for this tv production and for years was a holiday favorite. There is a story that they had to lock Giancarlo Menotti in a room to get him to finish it on time, and another story that he withheld broadcast rights after the original contract had run out. He apparently didn't like his own work very much and wanted to devote himself to the avant-garde garbage that constitutes his later operas.
It's in black and white, it's very old, but it is superior to the 1978 taping. The Amahl is simply superb (I heard him many years later and he had developed into a marvelous baritone). It may be impossible to find, but if you happen to run across it, especially in the holiday season, treat yourself and both treat and educate your children.
This Christmas opera was written for this tv production and for years was a holiday favorite. There is a story that they had to lock Giancarlo Menotti in a room to get him to finish it on time, and another story that he withheld broadcast rights after the original contract had run out. He apparently didn't like his own work very much and wanted to devote himself to the avant-garde garbage that constitutes his later operas.
It's in black and white, it's very old, but it is superior to the 1978 taping. The Amahl is simply superb (I heard him many years later and he had developed into a marvelous baritone). It may be impossible to find, but if you happen to run across it, especially in the holiday season, treat yourself and both treat and educate your children.
Jefferson in Paris
(1995)
I don't have a problem with accepting the affair
17 December 2002
I love this movie, because I am a complete sucker for movies set in the 18th century, and this is exceptionally well done. Nick Nolte is the most extremely unlikely choice to play Jefferson, but somehow he and the director make it work. The extensive selections from Jefferson's letters as he watches things unravel in France add a great deal to the entertainmnet value.
Most people think that TJ signed the Constitution, when in fact he was US ambassador to France. From a costume point of view and in terms of certain vignettes, this movie does a marvelous job of debunking that notion.
Now to the Sally Hemmings thing. DNA evidence does not lie, and it is now clear that he did indeed father her children. But I have a problem, and I'm not sure if there is any historical resolution to it. In the movie, she is a "massah, how's you feelin' today" type slave. I'm willing to accept that they fell mutually in love, but I'm still having a hard time dealing with her not having more class. It is a mistake to believe that slaves of relatively enlightened owners (yes, folks, I know what I'm saying) had no sophistication.
Dumas Malone, the great biographer of Jefferson, would go into an apoplexy if you raised the possibility of this affair being real. Now that we know that it was, I might be his unworthy successor in suggesting that a man like Jefferson would not simply take a steppinfetchit slave girl to his bed, but would rather seek comfort in the arms of someone whom he could respect, however questionable the situation looks in a modern light.
Most people think that TJ signed the Constitution, when in fact he was US ambassador to France. From a costume point of view and in terms of certain vignettes, this movie does a marvelous job of debunking that notion.
Now to the Sally Hemmings thing. DNA evidence does not lie, and it is now clear that he did indeed father her children. But I have a problem, and I'm not sure if there is any historical resolution to it. In the movie, she is a "massah, how's you feelin' today" type slave. I'm willing to accept that they fell mutually in love, but I'm still having a hard time dealing with her not having more class. It is a mistake to believe that slaves of relatively enlightened owners (yes, folks, I know what I'm saying) had no sophistication.
Dumas Malone, the great biographer of Jefferson, would go into an apoplexy if you raised the possibility of this affair being real. Now that we know that it was, I might be his unworthy successor in suggesting that a man like Jefferson would not simply take a steppinfetchit slave girl to his bed, but would rather seek comfort in the arms of someone whom he could respect, however questionable the situation looks in a modern light.
Murder or Memory: A Moment of Truth Movie
(1994 TV Movie)
Disturbing because it is supposedly a true story
17 December 2002
This is a slightly spoiling comment, so be warned.
People scoff at hypnosis because it is such an odd phenomenon, but it is real, and it is apparently true that memories can be erased and replaced, and it helps if you don't use the magic word (I'm about to hypnotize you) but just get the job done some other way.
This movie would never had been made if it had not been a true story, because it seems too improbable. The expert witness who eventually vindicates the boy is a represenstation of a real character who has helped out in many crimes (not by hypnotizing people but sometimes by showing that they are faking). The wonder is that they found a lawyer good enough to track down the guy.
Good performances all around by a little known cast. Odd side moments like the baseball game and the pre-sex in the back shack add to the atmosphere.
People scoff at hypnosis because it is such an odd phenomenon, but it is real, and it is apparently true that memories can be erased and replaced, and it helps if you don't use the magic word (I'm about to hypnotize you) but just get the job done some other way.
This movie would never had been made if it had not been a true story, because it seems too improbable. The expert witness who eventually vindicates the boy is a represenstation of a real character who has helped out in many crimes (not by hypnotizing people but sometimes by showing that they are faking). The wonder is that they found a lawyer good enough to track down the guy.
Good performances all around by a little known cast. Odd side moments like the baseball game and the pre-sex in the back shack add to the atmosphere.
Reign of Fire
(2002)
A very disappointing movie
3 December 2002
I rented this because of happy memories of Dragonslayer, and in terms of FX it did not disappoint. But the trailer, which implied that there was some credible progression in the dragons' takeover and not just the discovery of one male and then a survival existence, was a complete phony. Christian Bale was horrid as a prematurely aged, nose-broken ghost of his youthful self, and I sure hope those are not real tattoos on the naturally very handsome Matthew McConnaughey.
The Master of Ballantrae
(1984 TV Movie)
Small wonder this is the first comment
18 October 2002
Looks like an all-star cast, doesn't it? Forget it. This confusing pseudo-spectacle cannot survive Robert Louis Stevenson's wretchedly convoluted and improbable plot. The only reason I'm commenting is that I'm a sucker for 18th century movies and found this one horribly disappointing.
Since there is also no plot summary, an aristocratic family with two sons in constant contention with each other experience various adventures. The "good" son who is not so good succeeds in exiling the "evil" one who is not so evil, but the latter keeps coming back to haunt the former. But every turn of plot, if you want to call it a plot, suffers greatly from lack of credibility.
Poor Stevenson. He wrote long adventure stories for boys that were designed to make money. Then he occasionally showed his real talent, as he did in the long short story The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. But even there he was not well served, for most of the movie versions want to substitute a monster story for a true psychological thriller.
Since there is also no plot summary, an aristocratic family with two sons in constant contention with each other experience various adventures. The "good" son who is not so good succeeds in exiling the "evil" one who is not so evil, but the latter keeps coming back to haunt the former. But every turn of plot, if you want to call it a plot, suffers greatly from lack of credibility.
Poor Stevenson. He wrote long adventure stories for boys that were designed to make money. Then he occasionally showed his real talent, as he did in the long short story The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. But even there he was not well served, for most of the movie versions want to substitute a monster story for a true psychological thriller.
Last of the Dogmen
(1995)
I liked it, but why didn't they just correct those flaws?
12 October 2002
This movie deserves perhaps more consideration than the other commentator gave it. It is actually pretty good entertainment, the highlight being the scene where the long awaited secret is revealed in a memorable forest scene (I won't spoil it by being more explicit). The movie is marred by the totally unnecessary Wilford Brimley narration which makes it sound like an episode of The Dukes of Hazard, and by a doubly untied loose end at the conclusion of the film which will be obvious to anyone who sees it. Still, I could think of worse ways to pass a cold winter's evening.
King Rat
(1965)
I do not understand why I had never heard of this film
6 October 2002
The word sleeper must have been invented for this movie. I can't add much to what the other commentators have said, but this is a movie in the same qualitative category as Judgment at Nuremberg. I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a good guess as to why the movie was not popular. There is a clear if unconsummated homoerotic relationship between the George Segal character and the James Fox character. The latter is really homosexual, but the former is not, though he is a loyal and loving friend. (The medical orderly is also clearly gay.) It is a main thread of the movie, and could not have played very well in 1965, when people either would not have got the point or got it and reviled it.
Rin Tin Tin: K-9 Cop
(1988–1993)
Katts and Dog?
5 October 2002
This was one of several excellent family-oriented Canadian productions from that time that were broadcast in the US and then disappeared. As other commentators have indicated, they were thoroughly enjoyable for all ages.
Imagine my shock when on visiting Montreal about ten years ago I turned on the hotel tv and, finding nothing better, checked out Katts and Dog. Which I had known exclusively as Rin Tin Tin, K-9 Cop. Now, you have to understand several things. First, Rin Tin Tin was a famous German shepherd dog character from a series in the late 50s. So it was perfectly logical for this dog to have that name. But the dog in Canada was Rudy, and I was amazed to discover that they had gone back over every single "Rudy" and dubbed in "Rinty" for the US audience. The dubbing was absolutely undetectable. But to this day I don't get the point.
Second thing you have to understand: They never made it clear where the show took place. It was intentionally an unspecified city in the Pacific northwest. The police uniforms looked plenty US to me but they must have been designed to look Canadian to the Canadians as well. (They did not have checkered caps.) Standard Canadian and standard US English, if there is such a thing, are scarcely distinguishable, so I guess they got by by not having the characters say "eh?" Because of PC or union considerations or both, there was a sequence of episodes in there where the female interest spoke with a French accent. In the context they made her French French, but obviously she was quebecoise.
Anyway, an excellent family show, and it is a shame that those of its ilk seem to be with us no more.
Imagine my shock when on visiting Montreal about ten years ago I turned on the hotel tv and, finding nothing better, checked out Katts and Dog. Which I had known exclusively as Rin Tin Tin, K-9 Cop. Now, you have to understand several things. First, Rin Tin Tin was a famous German shepherd dog character from a series in the late 50s. So it was perfectly logical for this dog to have that name. But the dog in Canada was Rudy, and I was amazed to discover that they had gone back over every single "Rudy" and dubbed in "Rinty" for the US audience. The dubbing was absolutely undetectable. But to this day I don't get the point.
Second thing you have to understand: They never made it clear where the show took place. It was intentionally an unspecified city in the Pacific northwest. The police uniforms looked plenty US to me but they must have been designed to look Canadian to the Canadians as well. (They did not have checkered caps.) Standard Canadian and standard US English, if there is such a thing, are scarcely distinguishable, so I guess they got by by not having the characters say "eh?" Because of PC or union considerations or both, there was a sequence of episodes in there where the female interest spoke with a French accent. In the context they made her French French, but obviously she was quebecoise.
Anyway, an excellent family show, and it is a shame that those of its ilk seem to be with us no more.
Equus
(1977)
Pretentious piece of nonsense saved by its cast
2 October 2002
The story has it that the original favorite for the role of the boy was someone rejected by Burton because he was too tall. So instead we get Peter Firth, already developing a double chin when he's supposed to be only 17, who shuffles around like someone who can only practice one posture and expression per film.
A film starring Burton and Joan Plowright is hardly likely to be a complete flop, but this whole "angst" screenplay, where Shaffer bamboozles us as usual with his "sound and fury signifying nothing" and throws in his favorite deus ex machina to boot, hypnosis, which he doesn't get right even on its own terms, is at best a sophisticated exercise in voyeurism and normal-human-being bashing.
A film starring Burton and Joan Plowright is hardly likely to be a complete flop, but this whole "angst" screenplay, where Shaffer bamboozles us as usual with his "sound and fury signifying nothing" and throws in his favorite deus ex machina to boot, hypnosis, which he doesn't get right even on its own terms, is at best a sophisticated exercise in voyeurism and normal-human-being bashing.
Nobody has panned this thing badly enough
26 September 2002
Warning: Spoilers
There are spoilers in this commentary, as if that matters.
I'm beating a dead horse because this movie is so old, but it's been re-broadcast a number of times on the non-commercial channels recently, giving me the opportuniy further to appreciate how atrocious it is.
The irony is that the premise is really great, even credible by sci-fi standards. An astronomical anomaly ignites the Earth's atmosphere, and only a precisely timed and placed nuclear explosion can snuff it out. There is one super-submarine capable of this. The admiral who is the creator of and senior officer on that sub (he is not the captain) takes it on himself to do this against his authorization.
Ok, now, where do I start? Anywhere.
The admiral slaps a sailor a la Patton and gets away with it (his alleged problems are more subtly psychological, apparently).
The captain relieves the admiral, then that situation is ignored.
The captain doesn't want the missile fired, but then, without explanation, makes sure it happens.
Alvarez just happens to find a bomb lying on a shelf in the admiral's cabin so he can terrorize the ship.
They tap into the Atlantic cable and "London," whoever he is, answers.
There is not one, but two attacks by a giant octopus.
There is a stray old mine field in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
The only female crew member, the admiral's secretary, is openly the captain's girlfriend and calls him by his given name.
There are rock formations at 1000 feet or less in the Marianas trench.
A nuclear missile can be fired at the behest of a single person acting at will.
A research vessel carries such weapons at all.
The temperature outside is in excess of 170 degrees Faehrenheit and the crew sweats like it was a scene from South Pacific instead of just dying.
Peter Lorre plays a useless part I suppose just to have Peter Lorre in the cast (maybe Walter Pidgeon or the producer owed him a favor?)
It is never explained why in the scene with the admiral's cabin on fire there is "gas" coming from somewhere.
Everyone says "aye aye," when naval custome is just "aye."
A civilian visiting psychiatrist has access to and knows how to sabotage a nuclear reactor.
The shark eats the doctor but ignores the captain's arm dangling in the water.
In short, a laughable, cartoonish movie that could have been much better. Irwin Allen can be thought of as a more successful Ed Wood. I can just hear him saying, "we need a giant octopus scene; two would be better." Points: one out of ten because of lost potential.
I'm beating a dead horse because this movie is so old, but it's been re-broadcast a number of times on the non-commercial channels recently, giving me the opportuniy further to appreciate how atrocious it is.
The irony is that the premise is really great, even credible by sci-fi standards. An astronomical anomaly ignites the Earth's atmosphere, and only a precisely timed and placed nuclear explosion can snuff it out. There is one super-submarine capable of this. The admiral who is the creator of and senior officer on that sub (he is not the captain) takes it on himself to do this against his authorization.
Ok, now, where do I start? Anywhere.
The admiral slaps a sailor a la Patton and gets away with it (his alleged problems are more subtly psychological, apparently).
The captain relieves the admiral, then that situation is ignored.
The captain doesn't want the missile fired, but then, without explanation, makes sure it happens.
Alvarez just happens to find a bomb lying on a shelf in the admiral's cabin so he can terrorize the ship.
They tap into the Atlantic cable and "London," whoever he is, answers.
There is not one, but two attacks by a giant octopus.
There is a stray old mine field in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
The only female crew member, the admiral's secretary, is openly the captain's girlfriend and calls him by his given name.
There are rock formations at 1000 feet or less in the Marianas trench.
A nuclear missile can be fired at the behest of a single person acting at will.
A research vessel carries such weapons at all.
The temperature outside is in excess of 170 degrees Faehrenheit and the crew sweats like it was a scene from South Pacific instead of just dying.
Peter Lorre plays a useless part I suppose just to have Peter Lorre in the cast (maybe Walter Pidgeon or the producer owed him a favor?)
It is never explained why in the scene with the admiral's cabin on fire there is "gas" coming from somewhere.
Everyone says "aye aye," when naval custome is just "aye."
A civilian visiting psychiatrist has access to and knows how to sabotage a nuclear reactor.
The shark eats the doctor but ignores the captain's arm dangling in the water.
In short, a laughable, cartoonish movie that could have been much better. Irwin Allen can be thought of as a more successful Ed Wood. I can just hear him saying, "we need a giant octopus scene; two would be better." Points: one out of ten because of lost potential.
Komodo
(1999)
Kevin Zegers
18 August 2002
I don't have much to add about this movie, which I rather enjoyed, and which has more credibility at least than dive-bombing the World Trade Center into dust or literal dinosaurs being revived. I love Jill Hennessey (she is actually credited as Jillian Hennessey) and do not understand her. As if one ever understands the opposite sex. She left that cushy job on Law and Order. But I must disagree with at least one other commenter who disliked her acting. She is a fabulous actress, but subtle. Beauty doesn't hurt.
On the matter of Zegers being shirtless, the reason is obvious. In the scene where Hennessey confronts him in the collapsing building, he is holding himself as through he is actually nude and covering his private parts. You can't see a square inch of clothing on him. Also, his chest scars have conveniently disappeared. By the way, he already has the makings of a pot belly and probably will not age well, even though his IMDb profile states that he is an athlete.
On the matter of Zegers being shirtless, the reason is obvious. In the scene where Hennessey confronts him in the collapsing building, he is holding himself as through he is actually nude and covering his private parts. You can't see a square inch of clothing on him. Also, his chest scars have conveniently disappeared. By the way, he already has the makings of a pot belly and probably will not age well, even though his IMDb profile states that he is an athlete.
Follow Me Quietly
(1949)
Why did they bother?
6 August 2002
I suppose there were a gazillion of these B-movie shorts made, but I see little motive for reviving them. Still, it is not badly done for what it is. It will strike modern audiences very strangely for its anticipation of modern forensics on one hand and its old-fashioned shoot-out (improbable even for 1949) on the other. Also, there is nothing about this serial killer that does not ring true to this day. The uncredited waitress does not sound like, but is a dead ringer for Lucille Ball.
Nicholas and Alexandra
(1971)
I do not understand the reservations
4 August 2002
It may have something to do with the fact that I was at Princeton at the same time as the screenwriter's hemophiliac son, but everyone seems to be falling over themselves in finding fault with this nearly perfect movie. Tom Baker didn't "fade into obscurity," he became the most famous Doctor Who. The principals are exemplary and totally true to every historic account I've read. One commentator mentions inanely that Nikolaus was a cousin of King George while Alexandra was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Excuse me folks, we all know that. It makes them first cousins, which is one of the reasons the heir to all the Russias had a deadly hereditary disease. (Nikolaus, George V, and Kaiser Wilhelm were all first cousins.) This movie knocks one out with its combination of costume drama and realism. I don't make ten favorites lists but if I did it might be there. An absolute must see, over and over again.
The Caine Mutiny
(1954)
Character of Willie Keith
4 August 2002
The board has voted and the result is unanimous. This film has been thoroughly reviewed here, but having seen it this evening again on tv I feel the need to put in my two cents worth.
Some reviewers have read the novel, some haven't. I'm in the former category, in spades. One wonders how Wouk could have dropped the ball so badly after writing such a great first novel.
The play "The Caine Mutiny Court Martial" drops the Willie Keith story entirely, a sensible decision. But Willie is the central character of the novel. The film is flawed by including his character and love interest at all at the same time it revolves around the concept of all star casting.
Willie is not supposed to be a handsome callow youth. He is in fact overweight and suffers from lordosis. He only gets into the navy because the doctor feels guilty that he kept Willie waiting all day. Willie should look a little like the actor who plays Alfred in Miracle on 34th Street. Richard Dreyfuss might have managed the part. This very complex, almost Shakespearean plot involves not only everything that the movie shows, but Willie's coming of age. In fact, at the end, he captains and then decomissions the Caine as a much changed young man.
It must have been an impossibility for the producers to reconcile everything within Wouk's incredible novel. But instead of their silly compromise with pretty boy Robert Francis and "May Wynn," they should have written a whole new character who is seen only in the context of the dynamics of the Caine. That's major re-writing, but if you can get those kinds of performances out of an all-star cast that knocks your socks off, the other obvious adjustment should have been there too.
Some reviewers have read the novel, some haven't. I'm in the former category, in spades. One wonders how Wouk could have dropped the ball so badly after writing such a great first novel.
The play "The Caine Mutiny Court Martial" drops the Willie Keith story entirely, a sensible decision. But Willie is the central character of the novel. The film is flawed by including his character and love interest at all at the same time it revolves around the concept of all star casting.
Willie is not supposed to be a handsome callow youth. He is in fact overweight and suffers from lordosis. He only gets into the navy because the doctor feels guilty that he kept Willie waiting all day. Willie should look a little like the actor who plays Alfred in Miracle on 34th Street. Richard Dreyfuss might have managed the part. This very complex, almost Shakespearean plot involves not only everything that the movie shows, but Willie's coming of age. In fact, at the end, he captains and then decomissions the Caine as a much changed young man.
It must have been an impossibility for the producers to reconcile everything within Wouk's incredible novel. But instead of their silly compromise with pretty boy Robert Francis and "May Wynn," they should have written a whole new character who is seen only in the context of the dynamics of the Caine. That's major re-writing, but if you can get those kinds of performances out of an all-star cast that knocks your socks off, the other obvious adjustment should have been there too.
Love's Labour's Lost
(2000)
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways
20 June 2002
This play is impossible to perform whole or even reasonably intact in our time. Connoisseurs can only read it and trust in their feeble imaginations. It was written for the court of Elizabeth I, an audience that cannot be remotely duplicated in modern times. Yet it is exquisite in every detail. So Branagh, brilliantly, did what he could do with it, and the outcome is a miracle. He saves as much of the gorgeous Shakespeare as he can, including a climactic speech given, of course, by himself. And then interpolates those marvelous numbers that remind me of "Pennies from Heaven," except none are ironic, all are romantic. Ken, may I live to see your "Lear," and look you, botch it not.
The Outsiders
(1983)
People commenting on this seriously are missing the point
15 June 2002
I don't know about Coppola, and of course S.E. Hinton is a woman, but a movie like this is only made for one reason: exploitationally for gay men who would give their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to be surrounded by the likes of this cast. They're white trash, they smoke, they're handsome, they don't give a s*** about anything, they have no real girl friends; they're perfectly in the mold. It can't be a coincidence. It is irrelevant that they did not make a very good movie.
The Cardinal
(1963)
A film of shreds and patches
15 June 2002
I loved this film as a teenager and also read the book several times. It almost led me to become a priest, a fate I happily escaped. Nevertheless, it remains an author's foolish fantasy luckily (for him) published and made into a movie.
American bishops (cardinals if you must) were and are comparative idiots. They are selected for their loyalty and tolerated for their cash. The multilingual international sophisticate Stephen Fermoyle, a working class Bostonian with a melodramatic family history, is an impossibility.
Only Otto Preminger could have selected such a distinguished cast and then chosen a nobody like Tom Tryon, who went on to write horror novels, as the lead. It is a bit like casting Richard Beymer in West Side Story. I have always wondered if there hasn't been a male version of the casting couch going around.
It is in fact quite difficult to convey the complexities and inanities of the 20th century Catholic church in a movie. Shoes of the Fisherman, Monsignor, even that one with Jack Lemmon, they all get it wrong. Make a movie about blankety-blankety, the pastor of the church where I grew up. A former chief of navy chaplains (that's a two-star admiral, folks), an alcoholic who can't face the outrage from people when the archdiocese of blankety-blankety forces him to build a new church outside the bounds of custom, a man who has to deal with both the prior and the current obviously gay cardinals. Make that movie, and get it right.
American bishops (cardinals if you must) were and are comparative idiots. They are selected for their loyalty and tolerated for their cash. The multilingual international sophisticate Stephen Fermoyle, a working class Bostonian with a melodramatic family history, is an impossibility.
Only Otto Preminger could have selected such a distinguished cast and then chosen a nobody like Tom Tryon, who went on to write horror novels, as the lead. It is a bit like casting Richard Beymer in West Side Story. I have always wondered if there hasn't been a male version of the casting couch going around.
It is in fact quite difficult to convey the complexities and inanities of the 20th century Catholic church in a movie. Shoes of the Fisherman, Monsignor, even that one with Jack Lemmon, they all get it wrong. Make a movie about blankety-blankety, the pastor of the church where I grew up. A former chief of navy chaplains (that's a two-star admiral, folks), an alcoholic who can't face the outrage from people when the archdiocese of blankety-blankety forces him to build a new church outside the bounds of custom, a man who has to deal with both the prior and the current obviously gay cardinals. Make that movie, and get it right.
Return from the Ashes
(1965)
Plot summary and comment
12 June 2002
This film has suffered a strange fate. It used to be shown on tv all the time and was inevitably given two stars, when it is in fact a four-star movie. It is inconceivable that there is not plot summary here, so here goes:
Michelle, a currently single middle-aged medical doctor with a young daughter [already daring for the time], encounters the young fortune hunter Stanislaus in a casual meeting and makes him her boy toy. Michelle happens to be Jewish in Nazi-occupied Paris. When the Nazis do their thing, gentile Stan marries her in a moment of bravura that belies his true character. Nevertheless, they carry Michelle off to concentration camp. Several years after the war ends, she turns up and reunites with Charles, her former colleague at the hospital. She is so worn and haggard that she is hardly recognizable. Charles performs some plastic surgery, then she runs into Stan, who has taken up with Michelle's beautiful and still somewhat girlish daughter Gabby. Stan sees the striking resemblance and asks "Mme. Robert" if she will impersonate his supposedly late wife because French law won't give Gabby access to her mother's assets without a dead or alive body. Michelle agrees because she thinks it might be fun, but soon reveals herself as the real Michelle. Stan pretends to be reconciled with Michelle but plots with Gabby against her life.
This is the longest summary I have written because it is a very convoluted but masterfully managed plot. This is a much more convincing movie about mistaken/not mistaken identity than Hitchcock's "Vertigo." It is a three-character movie and all three are magnificent. I have left enough out of the summary to keep you in considerable suspense.
Michelle, a currently single middle-aged medical doctor with a young daughter [already daring for the time], encounters the young fortune hunter Stanislaus in a casual meeting and makes him her boy toy. Michelle happens to be Jewish in Nazi-occupied Paris. When the Nazis do their thing, gentile Stan marries her in a moment of bravura that belies his true character. Nevertheless, they carry Michelle off to concentration camp. Several years after the war ends, she turns up and reunites with Charles, her former colleague at the hospital. She is so worn and haggard that she is hardly recognizable. Charles performs some plastic surgery, then she runs into Stan, who has taken up with Michelle's beautiful and still somewhat girlish daughter Gabby. Stan sees the striking resemblance and asks "Mme. Robert" if she will impersonate his supposedly late wife because French law won't give Gabby access to her mother's assets without a dead or alive body. Michelle agrees because she thinks it might be fun, but soon reveals herself as the real Michelle. Stan pretends to be reconciled with Michelle but plots with Gabby against her life.
This is the longest summary I have written because it is a very convoluted but masterfully managed plot. This is a much more convincing movie about mistaken/not mistaken identity than Hitchcock's "Vertigo." It is a three-character movie and all three are magnificent. I have left enough out of the summary to keep you in considerable suspense.
Babes in Toyland
(1961)
They didn't get it quite right
10 June 2002
It is of course a fabulous entertainment for a young child, and I first saw it when I was very young indeed. But, now a trained musician, I reviewed it not too long ago and they get all the music wrong, which is a shame. I remember the number "I Can't Do That Sum" from elementary school music instruction, can still sing it backwards and forwards, and am depressed as to how they botched it in this movie.
First, they changed the classic words without any apparent motivation. Then, operettas need crisp, serious singers. Someone like Funicello who can barely carry a tune after serious direction does not belong in this context. The style for a number in the Mickey Mouse Show won't do for any serious song, whether classical or show tune.
Victor Herbert deserved better. Musicals that got it right (aside from the great classics)? "Pennies from Heaven," and one I've been looking for for a quite a while, "Newsies." You put a voice where a voice should be.
First, they changed the classic words without any apparent motivation. Then, operettas need crisp, serious singers. Someone like Funicello who can barely carry a tune after serious direction does not belong in this context. The style for a number in the Mickey Mouse Show won't do for any serious song, whether classical or show tune.
Victor Herbert deserved better. Musicals that got it right (aside from the great classics)? "Pennies from Heaven," and one I've been looking for for a quite a while, "Newsies." You put a voice where a voice should be.
Chuck & Buck
(2000)
Is this movie understood or misunderstood?
9 June 2002
This marvelous movie has been broadcast a lot on the art channels, which is why I have had the privilege of seeing it. It only lacks credibility if you are not a man who as a boy had an overwhelming and semi-reciprocated crush on another boy. That's a reality of gay life, folks, and I'm sorry if it makes sense only to 10% of the population. Movies about relationships between men who are attracted to each other, going back at least to Midnight Cowboy, are bound to be misunderstood, and liberation has not changed many of the fundamental realities.
I wonder if the director was forced by the backers to take out the boys in the play within a play and substitute grown men playing boys.
I wonder if the director was forced by the backers to take out the boys in the play within a play and substitute grown men playing boys.
Tell Your Friends