Reviews

As a kid growing up in the 1970s, I was addicted to paranormal documentaries. Documentaries such as Mysteries From Beyond Earth (1975), docudramas such as The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972) and TV's Project UFO (1978) and TV documentaries like In Search Of... were the kinds of shows I lived for. Recently, while wandering around on YouTube, I found the opening segment of one of my all-time favourite 1970s' paranormal documentaries, Bigfoot: Man or Beast? (the release date is often mistakenly said to be 1972, but it was actually released in 1975). Unfortunately, YouTube only features the first 10 minutes of the film (you can watch the first 11 minutes 48 seconds of the film on Google Video). Apparently, you can watch the entire documentary online at The Film Wall (http://www.thefilmwall.com), although the poster they feature on the Website is for a different Bigfoot film and the website asks for your credit card #, even though it insists you can watch movies online for free. It looks pretty dubious to me.

Bigfoot: Man or Beast? is a beautifully made documentary with outstanding production values, compelling footage and, at the risk of being accused of hyperbole, I consider it a work of art. Sadly, this outstanding documentary has not found its way to DVD. Many of the old- timers in the film are now, alas, no longer with us, so the film is also a very important historical document about early twentieth century sightings.

The film holds up beautifully today. The last time I saw it was on TNT back in 2000. Too bad it hasn't been released on DVD, because there is definitely a niche audience for this film and I think it would sell fairly well. The location filming and gripping eyewitness accounts combine to make this a remarkable film. If you see it, do not miss it. The sound of the screaming Bigfoot in the film (based on eyewitness descriptions) is chilling and worth the price of admission.

UPDATE (April 26, 2014): The movie is now available on DVD, as well as YouTube. Check it out if you get a chance!

This episode is clear evidence that The Simpsons - once the very best show on television - has way overstayed its welcome. Everything about it was awful. The gags fell flat; Homer as a grunge rocker (with a far bushier mop on his head than he ever had in the 1960s or 1970s) was mind-numbingly unfunny; the band Sadgasm was a stupid "spoof" of grunge; the use of the Verve's Bittersweet Symphony puts the action in 1997, a year when some of the best Simpsons episodes were actually made; the character Professor August adds nothing to the show and the subplot involving Marge attending university was pointless. Clearly, The Simpsons has been on television too long. Either it needs to go off the air or it needs fresh writers who can bring back the show's edgy 90s humor. Watching this episode reminds me of the bad old days when we were subjected to some of those later Happy Days episodes or reruns of Archie Bunker's Place or the final season of The Love Boat. Some critics were upset by the fact that "That 90's Show" more or less subverted the entire Simpson family history time line. For example, the episode invalidates just about all of the flashback episodes, including the classic "Homer's Barbershop Quartet," which was set in 1985 and showed Bart as a little kid. But this is not what offended me about the episode. It was tired. It lacked creativity. It didn't even have as much edge as your typical Suite Life of Zack and Cody episode. What a sad assessment of a show that in its heyday used to excite TV viewers so much with its splendid subversive humor.

This is an unusual film, to say the least. Chained For Life (1951) is the story of Siamese Twins Dorothy and Vivian Hamilton (interestingly, Daisy and Violet Hilton get to keep their initials in the film), one of whom -- Vivian -- is accused of shooting her sister's lover. We see their story in flashback form: Dorothy falling in love with a nasty, two-timing sharpshooter Andre (Mario Laval); Dorothy and Vivian singing (they sound like the Andrews Sisters) in a vaudeville act; Andre falling for Dorothy as part of a publicity stunt cooked up by their manager; oh, and did I mention the endless vaudeville scenes in the movie? One of the reasons the film falls short of its potential is because there are too many vaudeville scenes -- too much sharpshooting, too many stale jokes, too many music routines -- and they severely undermine the film's pace because they drag on so long. There are some terrific moments in the film, though, especially the dream sequence where Dorothy -- well, actually, a double playing Dorothy -- is separated from Vivian and dances outside under the starry sky, meeting her dream lover (in this scene, we only see a close-up of Dorothy behind some tree branches, which conceal Dorothy/Daisy's twin, Vivian/Violet). Another memorable scene is a profoundly humane speech delivered by a blind minister condemning bigotry. It is interesting that a blind character can see the world more clearly than the characters with 20/20 vision. Overall, this is a compelling film that keeps you watching. I agree with one poster who expressed regret that the movie is not a more faithful account of Daisy and Violet's actual story. The twins lived a deeply troubled life and it is amazing to see how much they have aged in the 19 years since Freaks (1932) was made. They look old and tired in this film -- even older than their 43 years. They have wrinkles under their eyes and they seem like they've seen it all. They've lost their youthful vitality and innocence they had in Freaks. And some of the acting in the film is pretty iffy. But this film deserves a higher rating than what it gets on IMDb. This reviewer gives it a 6/10. It is well worth your time. And it is now included in an excellent four-DVD set of exploitation films called "Cult Classics," released by Mill Creek Entertainment. See it if you get a chance.

If good intentions translated into great film-making, then I wouldn't be the only person reviewing this movie, and everybody would be giving it a score of 10 on IMDb. Even though this is a well-meaning film, it has justifiably gone on to become a lost historical relic of the 1980s. I actually saw this film at a fund-raiser in Los Angeles and Haskell Wexler was there. Everything about the film was dreadful. The acting, the pacing, the plot development, the screenplay. Robert Beltran plays a sort of combination CIA/Special Forces-type of commando who trains Contras in Nicaragua and falls in love with a journalist. Their relationship develops against the backdrop of the Contra war in Nicaragua. There's little chemistry between them on screen, and the film fails to engage the audience on all fronts: as a love story, as a film about war and warfare, as a drama. There were other, much better films about Central America from the period: Oliver Stone's gritty Salvador (1986) and Roger Spottiswoode's epic/fast-paced Under Fire (1983). This film just sort of disappeared. I don't even know whether it's available on DVD. Maybe I'm being harsh--it has been 20-plus years since I've seen it. And the good intentions were certainly there.

I just finished watching this movie on the Silver Screen channel here in Canada, and it's pretty good! The acting is actually believable. True, the low budget clearly shows. The dialog is goofy at times. But it keeps you watching. The cast of unknowns (for most of the people in this film, this was their only outing in a movie) does the best they can, considering what they have to work with (a shoe-string budget, schlocky music, an uneven script). But the movie has its moments: a creepy rattlesnake-in-a-car scene, a cool autopsy, an rotund couple dancing to a silly musical number, and plenty of authentic hipster lines. It's very campy, but it's undeniably fun, sort of like The Hypnotic Eye.

Saints and Soldiers (S&S) was a powerful film with some unforgettable moments, but it wasn't quite the masterpiece that some of its more devoted fans claim it is. The 1992 film A Midnight Clear was similar, in many respects, to S&S, but better, in my view. The acting in S&S, for the most part, was solid. The real standout performance was delivered by Peter Alse Holden as Gordon Gunderson, who managed to convey warmth, pathos and humor in a way that was vaguely reminiscent of Jeff Daniels. Corbin Allred was also fine as the tormented, deeply religious corporal who served an LDS mission to Germany years earlier and has at least one major skeleton in his closet. One warning: Kirby Heyborne's British accent was absolutely appalling--not believable for one second. He almost ruined the film, though he probably gave it his best shot. This film is not, repeat NOT, a Mormon propaganda film, as some of its detractors have suggested. I'm *not* a Mormon, although many of my friends and family are, and I watched it with my brother, who is LDS. S&S, in fact, depicts an ongoing argument about the afterlife (or lack thereof) between the religious Deacon and the atheistic Gould, yet at no point does the film attempt to answer the questions raised in their exchanges, which is the indication of a compelling movie. Moreover, the debate was convincing and effectively handled. Not for a moment did the film preach. Ultimately, S&S is a deeply humanistic antiwar film that conveys a crucial message about the importance of maintaining compassion and not vilifying or objectifying one's enemies (in this case, of course, the Germans) during a time of war. Viewers would do well to apply its timeless lessons to the war in Iraq right now. The film was definitely hampered by a low budget. Not all of the European characters were particularly believable or portrayed very effectively. And some of the main actors performed more admirably than others. It won't stand up alongside Hollywood's finest war films (e.g., Saving Private Ryan, All Quiet on the Western Front, Platoon, etc.). But it's a worthwhile attempt that will, with time, hold its own among the better war films.

I loved this show and never missed an episode. It was clever, funny, touching, and had great character development. It explored the lives of different generations of married people living together in the same apartment complex, and did so with a lot of warmth and humor. It had a great cast, with a real standout performance by Jay Thomas, who, in my opinion, is one of the great, underrated comic actors of our time. I dislike most sitcoms, but thoroughly enjoyed this one. Why it was canceled is a mystery to me. If the episodes were ever released on DVD, I'd snap them right up, but I somehow doubt that's going to happen. Sad, but the episodes will probably just get stashed away in the T.V. vaults, wherever canceled T.V. shows go.

I'm a big A&C fan and have been since I was ten. I saw this A&C film many times in the 1980s (I recorded it once and watched it over and over again). It turns out that this film is included in Volume 3 of the Best of Abbott and Costello DVD set. After purchasing the set, I had a chance to watch it again recently. There are some genuinely outstanding gags here. Of all the movies made after A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN (the duo's high point), this is one of the best. The chase scene through the caverns is actually very well made and has withstood the test of time. It remains one of the best climaxes from an A&C movie. Unfortunately, Boris Karloff isn't put to very good use in the film. This is a surprisingly atmospheric film, though, and at times it even contains elements of noir. It reminds me of a cross between WHO DONE IT and HOLD THAT GHOST, although it's not as good as either of those films. Still, unlike A&C GO TO MARS or Africa SCREAMS, it's certainly not a blemish on their filmography.

Long before Sex in the City or Six Feet Under, HBO proved itself to be at the cutting edge of television when it released several episodes of Philip Marlowe, Private Eye, with Powers Boothe as the best Marlowe in film history (even better, in my view, than Humphrey Bogart, Dick Powell and Robert Mitchum). He's so authentic, so dead-on perfect, that I can't read Chandler's Marlowe stories without thinking about him. The episodes that aired in 1983 were, in my view, far superior to the series in 1986. The writing was better, the story lines were tighter, and they had a gritty, noirish atmosphere that made you think of Los Angeles in the early 1940s. Unfortunately, the 1986 episodes did not have the same Chandleresque seedy Los Angeles feel. For years, I watched and re-watched the original episodes on videotape, but--alas--I've long since lost those taped episodes and I haven't been able to find copies of them ever since. Let's hope HBO re-releases them on DVD. This was television at its absolute finest.

post-script: After writing this review, I discovered that the episodes are indeed available on DVD. What a great day I'm having!

"Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" (1943) is, in the opinion of this reviewer, the last of the really good Universal monster features. It is definitely not in the same league as the the early James Whale and Todd Browning classics (e.g., "Frankenstein," "The Bride of Frankenstein," "Dracula," "The Invisible Man," etc.). Nor is it quite as strong as "The Son of Frankenstein." But it easily rivals "The Ghost of Frankenstein" and far surpasses the two House Of films ("House of Frankenstein" and "House of Dracula"). Lon Chaney Jr. is even better in this film than he is in the original "Wolf Man" (1941). And Lugosi is an impressive Frankenstein's monster, despite the studio's decision to cut references from the film to his blindness (a condition suffered by the monster in "The Ghost of Frankenstein") and his dialogue (again, from acquiring the brain of Ygor in "Ghost"). The film is beautifully photographed, well acted and a unique departure from previous Universal monster fests in the way it teams up two legendary creatures. It's a splendid later entry in the Universal horror cycle. After this, the universal horror films left much to be desired, at least until the magnificent "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948). I still put "Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man" in the DVD player if I'm feeling like watching what in my opinion is the studio's finest wartime horror film.

Other than one or two half-hearted performances, nothing about this film worked. It was utterly predictable (who didn't see that end coming a good hour or more before it arrived???), lacking the surprise twist of even one of the lesser "Twilight Zone" episodes. The dialogue was as hokey as I've ever seen in a film in the past five years. The "scary" scenes lacked any genuine suspense or sense of dread. Did you get a load of those monsters? Goodness, they made the Tree Monster in "From Hell It Came" look downright frightening by comparison. Adrien Brody, one of the greatest living actors, was utterly wasted as an unbelievable mentally challenged character. Poor Bryce Dallas Howard--who I'm sure is an outstanding actress if given a decent role--was as flat here as a bottle of Sprite that has been open for five days. Good old William Hurt was so over the top he was almost unbearable! All in all, this dull turkey has little going for it. Too bad, because "Sixth Sense" was such a gripping and emotional film.

This film is a sentimental favorite for many reasons. It represents the apex of Abbott and Costello's fifteen years in film (and really, I think, the duo's last truly inspired moment, despite some worthwhile later contributions, such as "A&C Meet the Invisible Man"). It's the last outing of the Universal monsters before science fiction films moved in and edged out horror cinema. It's one of Bela Lugosi's and Lon Chaney, Jr.'s last watchable films (though Lon, I admit, performed amazingly in "High Noon"). And the film works so incredibly well because of the brilliant screenplay by Rinaldo and Lees, who later suffered under the terrible blacklist (and Lees was recently murdered in a particularly heinous fashion). So, really, this film represents the last, great outing for many of the key figures involved.

Glenn Strange is a bit wooden as the monster (too bad they couldn't get Karloff to reprise the role), but Lon and Bela are in top form here. The scene where Lou sits on the monster's lap and can't talk when he sees the monster's hand moving is truly inspired comic brilliance. All in all, it's difficult to say enough great things about this movie. I watched it again recently on DVD and it withstood the test of time. It's truly a cinematic gem.

If you like Ed Wood's crazy body of work, you'll like this film. It's not as good as "Plan 9," and it rivals "Glen or Glenda?," but it's better than the rest of Wood's films. It's clearly shot with such a low budget that it's almost like watching a live, closed-circuit video feed from the inside of a spookhouse, circa 1959. The plot is inexplicable, and Wood's ensemble of actors is in top (or should I say bottom?) form, especially Paul Marco as Kelton. For sheer ultra-low budget fun, the film is right up there with "The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies," "Robot Monster" and "The Brain from Planet Arous." See it, if you get a chance.

I, too, am one of the filmgoers who remembers "The Legend of Boggy Creek" fondly from my childhood in the 1970s, when the film seemed so frightening. I recorded it on VHS many years ago and watched it again recently. Some scenes hold up amazingly well, and the gritty night photography enhances the frightening qualities of the film. It's too bad "The Legend of Boggy Creek" was made on such a tight budget, because the director, Charles B. Pierce, really had some good ideas about how to make a horror film. He clearly comes from the "less is better" school of pyschological horror. Sometimes it's much more frightening not to know exactly what's out in the woods. But it's important not to be overly generous in this case. This film is incredibly campy (recall: the guy on the toilet . . . the cat who died of fright), and the hokey musical interlude is sure to turn off today's audiences. Still, hang in there if you see this film on TV. It's a fascinating piece of 70s camp horror. For good or ill, they truly don't make 'em like this anymore.

"Shadow of a Doubt" remains my personal favorite Hitchcock film. It contains all of the master's finest touches. The performances are marvelously understated. It's Teresa Wright's finest moment on film (she turns in an even more nuanced perfromance than in "The Best Years of Our Lives"; she was truly one of the great underrated actresses). The film also provides a fascinating glimpse into small-town American life circa World War II. It's a taut, humorous, and ultimately tragic coming-of-age film.