Change Your Image
andrewtowne-1
Reviews
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
A blatant rip-off of "The Dirty Dozen"
I found this film entertaining, but that doesn't mean it's something I can respect.
It's one thing to make sequels and prequels as an admission of creative bankruptcy. That's certainly bad enough, and distressingly common nowadays.
But outright rip-offs of other films based -- apparently -- on the assumption that the young film-going audience is unaware of anything created before their time is unacceptable.
Especially when the critics and audiences go into orgasmic ecstasies regarding the "fresh" and "original" -- not to mention "revolutionary" and "profound" -- supposed merits of the film in question.
It's all a sad commentary on how ignorant and easily conned even today's supposed intellectuals are. They are, in fact, ignorant victims of the self-esteem industry and should bow their heads in shame.
It is distasteful as well to see yet another movie that exploits the Holocaust. I would have hoped that "Schindler's List" would be the last gasp of that "genre." Now, if one forgets all the above, there are some good things in this movie. But "good things" in the sense of a comedy of manners or stereotypes. The raging Hitler is well-done, as is the ruthless SS officer. Of course, we know (I note with sarcasm) that the greatest Hollywood-style Nazi villains are always charming, suave and debonair; not to mention multi-lingual (in French, German, English and Italian) and able to handle themselves in posh restaurants...
If Tarantino wanted to make a black comedy based on exaggerated stereotypes, he might have succeeded. It is the lack of originality in every respect, however, that kills this film and makes its greatest advocates out to be fools.
The Nutty Professor (1963)
Great for a variety of reasons not stated in most reviews
This movie fits into the broad categories of "comedy of manners", "satire" and "farce." The French playwright Moliere was a master of such comedy, which relies on character types that are played off against each other. The characters are not just stereotypes, but crudely exaggerated stereotypes -- and the resulting comedy is broad, brash, and almost cartoon-like. You either like this sort of thing or you do not. I love it when it's done well -- whether by Jerry Lewis or by Carol Burnett.
The extremes of character I've mentioned carry over into everything else. Exaggeration is key to the comedic effect.
When Jerry, playing an extremely nerdy, socially inept and absent-minded chemistry professor, inadvertently blows up his own class room, it sounds like a nuclear bomb going off.
Later, when he is summoned to the college president's office for a stern dressing down, both he and the president do a masterful job of playing to stereotype. The president is vain, arrogant, cold and imperious. He gives Jerry such a lengthy silent treatment that you almost start to look at your watch. But this attempt at intimidation utterly fails because Jerry is much too socially inept to realize that he is supposed to be intimidated.
The extremes of exaggeration and contrast carry over into Jerry's dual roles as the nerdy but good-hearted professor who can be bullied with impunity (Dr. Jekyll) and the arrogant, conceited, bullying hipster Buddy Love (Mr. Hyde.) The tight structure of the underlying comedic conception is demonstrated by the mirroring that takes place -- with the conflict between Jerry's two opposite characters being reflected in the relationship between his parents. Because of the chemical formula that Jerry invents in order to transform himself, the role between the two parents ends up being reversed, with the bullied father finally cowing the bullying mother.
Other notable aspects of the movie are the wonderful big band and swing music, not unlike the equally enjoyable music found in Jerry's other great movie "The Patsy." The hipster suits that Jerry wears as Buddy Love are classic in their own right.
And there's a feeling of spaciousness that accurately reflects how America felt in the fifties and early sixties.
Then, of course, there are the very thinly disguised references to the Rat Pack (Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, etc.) The Buddy Love character is actually an exaggerated rendition of a how a lot of people were during that time. And the dialog accurately reflects that.
I think Jerry Lewis makes a lot of people uncomfortable not because his comedy is bad, but rather because it is too good and cuts to the quick in places where people are sensitive.
But that's just something that great comedy does when it is farcical, satirical, and -- as in this case -- a comedy of manners that pokes fun at character types.
What is it that they say about stereotypes? "The trouble with stereotypes is that they are so true..." And sometimes, people just don't like what they see in the mirror.
Phares d'ouest (1990)
"Western Lights" (the title in English) is a good Cousteau-style documentary
This documentary is about 12 French teenagers who sail a large sailing ship (with the help of two or three adults), following the same course Columbus followed from Spain to the Yucatan Peninsula, with stops at various Caribbean islands.
It's an excellent film with decent production values for the time. The boys clearly know how to sail and demonstrate a lot of courage and skill. There is one great scene in which a woman sings on the beach, and her dog tries to sing along with her.
This film would be excellent for families, teenagers interested in sailing, and others interested in Columbus, the Caribbean, the Canary Islands, Spain and Mexico. It is also a good film if you want to brush up on your colloquial French, although it has English subtitles for those who do not speak French.
Song for a Raggy Boy (2003)
Outstanding in Every Way
Everything about this movie is wonderful if you can handle the grim subject matter.
The musical score is superb, the cinematography excellent, the writing intelligent, and the acting faultless.
I was expecting the subject matter to be exploited, but it wasn't. At the same time, no punches were pulled.
Everyone involved in this project deserves high praise, and my only complaint is that here is yet another great movie ignored by the mainstream.
I am happy to say that this movie is heart-warming at the end -- in spite of the tragedy that takes place, and the fact that the wrongdoers do not receive the punishment they so richly deserve.
Anyone concerned about the injustices and hardships visited upon innocent and defenseless children should see this movie, which is based on historical fact.
How the West Was Won (1962)
One of the greatest American movies
This is a movie that bites off more than it can chew, but still manages to be a classic.
No American should fail to see it.
No one who wants to be exposed to the thrilling and uplifting aspects of America -- about which we seldom hear today -- should fail to see it.
"How the West Was Won" depicts the lives of three generations of a family moving West.
The writing is excellent, and the acting is beyond reproach -- especially Carrol Baker and Debbie Reynolds, who convincingly depict their characters at different ages and in sharply different moods and situations.
For the time, the cinematography and special effects are wonderful, although the original Cinerama format doesn't come off all that well on a standard DVD.
No matter -- there is too much that is great about this movie to worry about something like that.
The musical score is outstanding. Alfred Newman is a talented and sophisticated composer, and the selection and arrangement of folk songs is superb.
Hollywood spectacles don't often work well, but this one -- like "Titanic" -- is a treasure well worth viewing again and again.
Titanic (1997)
Hollywood at its best: should be in the top 100 movies ever made
I loved this movie.
It has everything -- romance, tragedy, comedy, suspense, action, adventure, acute social commentary -- and is extremely well crafted.
Many movies try to do everything and fail. This movie tries to do everything and succeeds beautifully. Better than that, it is greater than the sum of its remarkable parts. And it is hard to get better than that.
Those who are -- with I admit a lot of justification -- cynical about big Hollywood productions might not ever accept what I am saying.
But being closed-minded is not the same as being clever. Not every low-budget "art" or independent film is great; neither is every big-budget production from Hollywood bad.
"Titanic" not only isn't bad, I am confident that it will go down in history as one of the greatest movies ever made.
Let's begin with Leonardo DiCaprio. He is in a class by himself as an extraordinarily good looking young man who is not just a pretty boy, but who can really act. He was riveting in "The Basketball Diaries." He is no less outstanding in "Titanic." I have never seen an actor showing such range -- from drug addicted athlete to romantic lead -- in such a short period of time. Clearly, the only thing that can hold DiCaprio back is a bad script.
This leads me to my next key point: "Titanic" is very well written. There is not a single false note in the writing, and the plotting is very tight with no holes that I can see. It all fits neatly and plausibly together -- which is rare both in novels and in movies.
I could go on, praising the other actors, the direction, the special effects, etc., but I think I've made my overall point.
This is not just some over-blown pseudo-romance featuring depth-less and soul-less "beautiful people."
It makes me proud that Americans can still create great art -- even in Hollywood.
The Basketball Diaries (1995)
What an incredible movie! Di Caprio leaves other actors in the dust.
I always thought Leonardo Di Caprio was just another pretty face.
But I have rarely (if ever) seen better acting than the scene in this movie in which he comes back home to his mother and she refuses to take him in.
DeCaprio mixes passion with a "bad boy" coolness in a way that I find very appealing.
This movie is worth seeing for anyone who has dealt with loved ones who are addicted.
Having been down that road myself, I didn't detect any false notes.
For "The Basketball Diaries" alone, Di Caprio deserves to be a major star.
Highest possible recommendation!
Voor een verloren soldaat (1992)
An implausible story, because there is no motivation
"For a Lost Soldier" is a beautifully filmed movie, and the actors did very well with what they had.
What the two leading actors had, unfortunately, was a script that did not give their characters any motivation for falling in love.
There is not a single point in this movie where one finds any reason for the love between the young boy and the Canadian soldier.
The soldier doesn't rescue the boy's dog, protect the boy from an abusive father, or do anything else that might earn the boy's affection and loyalty (I am making these possible motives up; there is no dog or abusive father in the movie.)
One minute the boy and the soldier are noticing at each other; the next minute they are friends, and well on their way to being lovers.
I find this especially disappointing, because it is slick Hollywood films that are supposed to be superficial, not "sophisticated" European films like this one.
But I could name any number of lesser known, recent Hollywood movies that have more depth.
I could even name quite a few HBO movies and "after-school specials."
In the end, one must be satisfied with aspects of the film that have little to do with the relationship between the two main characters.
One thing I found very interesting in this movie was the religious piety and devotion of the Dutch people who lived in rural areas -- a real contrast to the secular orientation of Dutch urban life today.
Is there a schism between country and city today when it comes to religion (and related social values) in Holland?
I also found it touching that the Dutch family that took in the boy treated him so warmly, then asked for no thanks because they had only been doing their duty.
Flashbacks of a Fool (2008)
One of my favorites, beautifully done
If this movie has an overall theme, it seems to concern the profound influence a few childhood events can have in shaping people's lives. That theme is intelligently handled here, because events that might be portrayed as purely negative also have their positive aspects. Out of strife we grow. And that is what this movie seems to want to convey.
There are gaps in the plotting and unexplained situations, but that is more the norm in books and movies than most people would like to admit. That is why we depend on such things as emotion, good music, good cinematography, etc., to smooth over those rough edges, and that is what we get here.
Some scenes are so memorable that they would be difficult to ever forget: especially the scene where young Joe dances as the girl he wants to date sings. You can see that this is a wonderful moment for both of them. Unfortunately it is spoiled by subsequent events. But in the end, there is redemption of a kind.
There is not really much more to say (without spoiling the movie) except that I highly recommend this movie. Congratulations to the writers, musicians, director, actors, really everyone who was involved in making it.
Malibu's Most Wanted (2003)
Good comedy of manners with psychological point
This movie does a good job of developing character types and playing them off against each other.
First, there is the ironic humor implicit in a white boy thinking that his rich white beach town is "the hood" and that he is one of the "oppressed people." At one point, he asks his black governess if she thinks that "our people" will ever be treated right. Eventually we find out that this white boy was literally raised by his black governess because his parents -- who are important and busy people -- were never around.
He listened to and loved her music, got her perspective on life, picked up her accent, etc. He fell in love with rap music as a little kid, and his goal in life is to be a big-time rapper.
So the notion of a white boy acting black is not as preposterous as it seems.
One aspect of this movie that I found brilliant was the way the writers also incorporated the opposite situation of blacks "acting white." Specifically, two black character actors -- one who attended Juilliard, the other who launched his career at the Pasadena Playhouse, are hired by the boy's father to "scare the boy white." At first, we see these actors in an ad for the father's gubernatorial campaign arguing and pushing each other on a basketball court, and they do seem very tough.
But when we meet them in person, they don't really have a clue about the ghetto or how to act like gangsters.
When they stage a kidnapping of the white boy and take him to the house of one of their girlfriends who lives in the ghetto, they quickly realize that they are in over their heads.
Then some real gang bangers come along and (in another ironic juxtaposition) the hardest core gangster in a guns-blazing showdown turns out to be the poser white boy, whose shooting escapade (no one is killed or injured) is captured on video by reporters and televised on the evening news.
Naturally, the boy's father sees this and is mortified -- what will become of his run for the governorship now? Anyway, congratulations to the writers of this movie for a job well done.
And congratulations to Jamie Kennedy for his excellent acting and comedic skills.
Earth Minus Zero (1996)
A fun movie -- the cheesy stuff is part of the joke
I liked this movie a lot. It's not meant to be slick science fiction with awesome special effects, but rather a fun and even thought-provoking story about families, people's values, and the impact of Nintendo, virtual reality and nanotechnology on our lives.
I found the acting to be excellent. The wimpy alien who just wanted to go back to his own planet was well played. The children were delightful. The little girl with the squeaky voice was cute, and the older boy was brave and smart but unpretentious at the same time.
The mother had a lot of spunk, while the father was mild mannered but capable of rising to the occasion to defend his family when it was necessary for him to do so. The science teacher was a stereotypical genius with a good heart.
I found the very fake looking special effects to be entertaining. Many of them reminded me of the TV show "Lost in Space." I am going to try to find out if any of these actors went on to bigger things. I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
MASH (1970)
I hate both this movie and the TV Series that came out of it.
I remember seeing this movie when it first came out.
I was living in a conservative part of wealthy Marin County, California (I was seventeen), and the movie was being shown in a more liberal "hippie-ish" town that considered itself ultra-cool.
When I went into the theater, I was spotted by a classmate who lived in yet another liberal area of Marin, and he looked at me goggle-eyed. "What are YOU doing here!"
It was sort of the reverse of the kid from the wrong side of the tracks showing up at a party on the "right" side and being sneered at by the rich kids because he is not wearing the latest designer jeans.
America cannot help turning politics into fashion, and this was especially true in the sixties.
So I was eager to see this movie that I - uncool person that I was supposed to be -- was not supposed to be interested in.
What great message would it give? Was I about to have the scales removed from my eyes and achieve a Zen-like Enlightenment?
Other people have already described the movie, which is little more than a bunch of fraternity pranks by over-aged "students" who happen to be surgeons.
It couldn't have been more obvious at the time that, even though the setting was supposed to be Korea, this movie was an anti-Vietnam War movie.
In fact, it was a celebration of crudity, anti-intellectualism, misogyny and cheap moralizing so self-righteous, smug and unsubtle as to make a religious revival meeting look like Plato's Symposium by comparison.
Of course, the anti-war crowd in the theater gobbled it up.
One could see that, for them, it really didn't matter what happened in the movie.
They had all come together to bask in their mutually reinforcing political, moral and cultural superiority.
There was a hateful edge to their cheers and laughter. One almost dared not disagree with them -- any more than, say, a Jew might have cursed at the Nazis during the Nuremberg rallies.
Little did I know then that I was witnessing the dawn of the Mindless and Intolerant American Left, Post-1965-Version.
I will admit that this movie did not incline me to look favorably upon the subsequent TV series.
But how could anyone have avoided seeing at least a few episodes of the omnipresent M.A.S.H. on TV in the years that followed? It just wasn't possible.
So I tried to keep an open mind.
Yes, the TV show was milder -- a sort of soap opera of the tents, with a nice fuzzy little "moral" neatly wrapped up and delivered to its adoring audience at the end of each show.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
The most dishonest piece of trash I've ever seen
I happen to be in the oil business, and all the rubbish that Moore spouts about how that business works is just that -- rubbish.
He is shocked -- just shocked -- that there is actually a connection between Americans in the oil business and Saudis in the oil business.
If he knew anything about that business, he would realize how silly he is being.
Americans were the ones who discovered oil in the Middle East, told the Arabs how to get it out of the ground, and then provided the technology needed to do so.
We have never failed to pay for a single drop of oil that we have gotten from the Middle East (not that we get that much; most of our foreign oil comes from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.)
The Arabs (and Persians in Iran) are still heavily dependent on American know-how in order to efficiently find and produce the oil that they sell.
In fact, they are so incapable of doing much of anything themselves that Iraq -- for instance -- has no refineries and has to ship all of its oil abroad in order to get it turned into gasoline before it is shipped back to Iraq for use by Iraqi drivers.
So when people scream about how "corrupt" it is that American companies like Halliburton or Bechtel are involved in oil exploration and production in the Middle East, it is clear that they have failed to educate themselves.
There are only three companies that I am aware that are capable of pulling off really big energy infrastructure projects in the Middle East: Halliburton, Bechtel and Bin Laden Group.
My own small California-based natural gas exploration and production company depends on a handful of key companies without whom we could not function. Halliburton is one of them. Does that make me a buddy of Dick Cheney? I've never even met the man.
And if anyone remembers the end of the first Gulf War when Saddam Hussein torched Kuwait's oil wells, those who were paying attention will remember that there was just one small company that was qualified to safely put out those raging oil well fires.
That company was an American company.
You would think that the liberals and environmentalists (of which I trust Moore is one) would award a gold medal to a company that, at great risk to its employees' life and limb, stopped an ecological disaster in its tracks.
But no.
It is so obvious that Moore's agenda is to portray oil companies, big business, Republicans, Christians, white people, Western Civilization, etc., as The Great Satan, and everyone else as the poor little victims of said Great Satan.
Thus, as someone else pointed out here, Moore says nothing about how evil Saddam Hussein was to his own people.
He couldn't care less about Israeli men, women and children being blown up by Palestinian suicide bombers.
Oil just dropped from $140 a barrel to $70.
When it was $140, the liberals and Democrats screamed about price fixing by Big Oil.
Well, if they are right that the oil companies run the world, why did the price come down?
Um. Er. Never mind.
Another amusing but pathetic example of left-wing distortion is the periodic raging by liberals and Democrats about Iraqi oil not paying for the Iraq war.
Well, let's see.
12 years of UN sanctions and Saddam Hussein diverting what little money Iraq got for its oil into building palaces and buying weapons instead of exploring for new oil and maintaining Iraq's oil infrastructure left Iraq's oil industry a big mess that will take years to fix.
And that mess hasn't been helped by the constant attacks on oil infrastructure during the U.S. occupation by disgruntled Sunnis and Al Qaeda-related terrorists.
But why concern oneself with such details when all one has to do is say "Bush = Big Oil = Saudis = Bin Laden = 9/11 = AmeriKKKa = rich Republicans = Great Satan?"
By the way, for those who believe that the rich do not pay their fair share in taxes, here are the facts:
The IRS will be happy to tell you that -- even after the Bush tax cuts -- the top 5% of income-earners pay over a third of all federal income taxes collected, the top 10% pay over half, and the bottom third pay practically nothing while benefiting from all of the goods and services paid for by the rich (who also give generously to charity.)
Moore and his left-wing cabal (and I include Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid here) want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
But that goose won't wait around to be killed.
The rich -- who risk their capital to create companies that create jobs for Americans and generate the wealth that is taxed and transferred to the needy -- will simply leave this country, taking their companies, jobs and money with them.
What a sorry pass we have come to as a culture and a nation that so many supposedly intelligent and well-informed people take "Fahrenheit 9/11" seriously.
The sixties left-wing radicals whose Communist revolution failed have taken over the media, the universities, the music industry, the fine arts establishment and Hollywood.
We are doomed.
The Man from Left Field (1993)
A movie that is more than the sum of its parts
A bunch of kids who live on the wrong side of the tracks in a Florida town want to play baseball. But the only decent baseball field is on the "right" side of the tracks where the rich people live. The kids can only play there if they join a league, which means getting a coach.
They pay an older man in their neighborhood (who turns out to be a drunk) to be their coach, and he reneges on the deal without giving their money back.
Then, at the last minute, a mysterious man (Burt Reynolds) wanders into the dug-out on the baseball field.
He is unshaven, dirty, and doesn't say a word.
When the man in charge of the field shows up, the kids tell him that the mysterious stranger is their coach. The man says okay, and the kids start playing with some other kids.
Finally, the mysterious stranger offers them tips on playing the game. It turns out he not only knows baseball, but can hit a 95 mph fast ball.
The rest of the movie concerns his helping the kids with their personal problems, including giving some good old-fashioned beat-downs to the neighborhood bullies and the abusive father of one of the kids.
One of the kids plays match-maker, getting the coach to date his single mom.
All in all, this is a heart-warming movie with a message: It's not what you have or what you are, but who you are (your character) that really counts in life.
The kids are charming and fun, so it is easy to sympathize with them while they confront life's problems.
In the end, it turns out that the mysterious stranger is an amnesiac who has a very high position in his former life.
He leaves to go back to his old life, but doesn't stay away long. He has found his true family in these kids and in this humble neighborhood on the "wrong" side of the tracks.
This movie is obviously not a high-budget feature, and a lot of questions about the man's former life are not answered.
But if you don't mind these minor flaws, this is a wonderful movie.
Burt Reynolds does a great job (he produced the movie); so do all the other actors, the writers, and everyone else involved in making this film.
It's nice to see a movie that promotes "family values" while still portraying the world realistically.
Vice Squad (1982)
Each scene a perfect little vision of hell
Although I am tired of sex and violence in movies, there are times when a movie can incorporate them and still be intelligent and memorable.
This is one of those movies.
It is obvious that all who were involved in its production had a clear vision and executed it perfectly.
The atmosphere just oozes menace and sleaze, but there are blackly humorous episodes -- such as when an aging, wealthy pervert invites a prostitute to officiate at his "funeral" in a classically ostentatious Hollywood estate complete with church pipe organ music.
Such details are what make this movie, and some of them are so bizarre that -- as in life -- they must be true because no one could have thought them up.
And yet they were thought up.
So this movie ends up vindicating the power of imagination, as the best art must do. Okay, I'm going a bit overboard here, calling this movie "art," but let's just say it's very artful and leave it at that.
I sense the influence of Stanley Kubrick in the way the movie was directed: a succession of set pieces, almost as if one were in the audience facing a stage.
Now after saying all of these nice things, let me warn the potential viewer that this is indeed a brutal, disturbing and depressing movie insofar as the subject matter is concerned.
It will give some people nightmares.
And it will satisfy the lusts and violent desires of others.
And as far as the violence goes, it is scary precisely because we know that these things really do happen to people.
The Bad News Bears (1976)
Raunchy but fun
I played Little League way back when, and this movie is pretty true to my experience. The parents are all into it, and their competitiveness rubs off on the kids.
If a kid isn't good, he gets beat up by other kids.
Hey, this is what makes America great, right? It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and hitting that home run is basically no different than selling that house, getting that raise, or getting into that country club.
Those considerations aside, baseball is a wonderful sport (much better, in my opinion, than football and basketball.) It has a grace and honor all of its own. And the lessons you learn playing as a team are what really count.
A highlight of this movie is the team manager's insistence on risking the championship by letting the "bad" kids play.
Another highlight is a kid deliberately letting the opposing team get a home run after his father/coach loses it and hits him on the field.
The juvenile delinquent kid trying to pick up the ballerina was a classic scene.
One of the charms of this movie is that the kids -- many of whom look so innocent and angelic -- are foul mouthed, talking back to the adults and making racist and sexist comments.
Why is this not offensive? Why is it refreshing?
Because we live in a politically correct (read: dumbed down and hateful) age in which the ultimate sin is to offend anyone -- even those who have it coming. But only because of that.
Walter Matthau is perfect as the alcoholic coach who finally cleans up his act a little bit and gets back into the spirit of winning.
The classical music that goes along with movie is wonderful, even though that might seem to be an odd choice of music for a movie like this.
There is really no way to convey the delight of this movie through words. You just have to see it.
Would I show it to my kids? Mmm. Don't know about that. But it sure is fun viewing for adults!
Monster House (2006)
A lot of potential here, not quite realized
Too many American directors think that have to fill their movies with "whiz, bang, flash" in order to make a point.
Spielberg is one of those directors. Subtle, he's not. Nor is he very original. The influences of Alfred Hitchcock, Ray Bradbury and Disney were just a little too obvious.
And good technique is not enough; there has to be some substance in order to make a movie great.
I almost got seasick as the sharp geometric perspectives in this movie made it feel more like a virtual reality roller coaster than something that I could just sit back and enjoy.
Having said all of that, this movie had some very good things about it: wonderful color sense, decent characterization, a Halloween atmosphere that was very appealing.
It was just overdone, that is all.
Disney knew where to draw the line; Spielberg clearly does not.
The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes (1969)
Another wonderful movie from Disney
Add this to the list of great non-animated Disney movies and TV shows of the fifties and sixties (some others are "Darbie O'Gill and the Little People," "Follow Me, Boys," "Spin and Marty," and "The Hardy Boys.") This is wholesome, fun, family entertainment. But it's also witty, well-written and not overly sentimental. A nice slice of Americana at its best.
Kurt Russell, so appealing as a child actor in "Follow Me, Boys," returns to the screen as a nineteen-year-old (approximately) college student. His acting range is excellent, and he is accompanied by an able crew of supporting actors. Joe Flynn (who many will remember as the perpetually flustered captain in "McHale's Navy") is perfect as the dean of a private college that ranks low academically and in terms of financial resources in comparison to other colleges in the state -- especially the state university. Flynn -- in a sign of his college's limited resources -- drives what appears to be a Volkswagen Karman Ghia convertible. The driver's-side interior door latch is broken, so he simply uses a rope to keep it closed.
He complains that the state university is rolling in taxpayer money that his private college can't lay its hands on, and rants and raves in a meeting of the college board of directors about the unfairness of that and about how the president of the state university is "greedy." The students overhear all of this through a bug they've planted in the dean's office. The dean, having declared that the school can't afford a computer that one of the professors wants, goes on to mention the names of some of the students he thinks should be put on academic probation.
Hearing all of this, the students decide to try to get the computer themselves. What follows is a comedy of mishaps, misunderstandings and odd coincidences that is very entertaining. The overall theme -- that friendship is more important than money, fame and prestige -- is well supported by the plotting and character development in the movie.
This movie, in my opinion, is worth watching more than once. Part of its charm is that the conception of what a computer was and could do was so different in 1969 than it is today.
All in all, I highly recommend "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes."
Follow Me, Boys! (1966)
Another wonderful '60s film from Disney
Just as he did with his "Spin and Marty" and "Hardy Boys" series, Walt Disney gives us a wholesome but not overly sentimental portrait of small town (or rural, in the case of "Spin and Marty") America in this movie.
Lem is an itinerant jazz musician traveling from show to show with other musicians during the Depression. He hasn't been paid by his producer, and decides to abandon the tour and take a job as a clerk in a small town general store.
He meets a girl who works at a nearby bank. After some initial mishaps and misunderstandings, the two of them show up at a civic function where the mayor declares that the town's boys need something to keep them out of trouble.
Lem volunteers to start a boy scout troop. The town's kids are enthusiastic, with one exception -- a boy who stays away from the other kids because his father is a drunk and he feels he must take care of him rather than play "silly games." There is a confrontation between this boy and the other kids, and Lem tries to persuade the boy to join the scouts.
I won't tell any more about the plot, because that would spoil the experience of seeing this movie. I will just say that almost everything in this movie is perfect -- the writing, music, cinematography, acting and sets.
Lem is a wonderful role model and teacher for the kids, and the charm of small-town America shines through. There are moments that will bring a tear to your eye, but the overall tone of this movie is one of exuberance and joy.
It is a delight to see a movie that celebrates good character development in this day and age of cynicism, sensationalism and a general lack of moral standards. This is especially true for movies involving children, because a society that does not raise its children well does not deserve to survive -- and probably won't.
Please keep in mind that I am no prude or religious right-winger, or anything of that sort. But I do believe in decency, good taste, good character and good manners. And this movie confirms the importance of those values.
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
This movie is superb in every way
"Rosemary's Baby" mixes paranoia with dark humor, and the result is a classic.
I can only suppose that director Roman Polanski drew on the experiences of his childhood in Nazi-occupied Poland in putting his unique stamp on this movie (the murder of his wife Sharon Tate had not yet occurred.)
Ira Levin, who wrote the book on which this movie is based, deserves a lot of credit. The creepy names of the characters -- "Roman and Minnie Castavet," " Dr. Sapirstein" -- add a disturbing sense of authenticity to this tale of old-fashioned black magic in what many might otherwise regard as the capital of modern sophistication and skepticism -- New York City.
This movie is filled with ironic juxtaposition, and that is the basis for much of its humor.
The choice of the Gothic and turreted Dakota apartment building (where John Lennon lived and died -- but that had not yet happened) is entirely appropriate.
The folksy neighborliness of the Castavets is especially disturbing in light of their true intentions, and Ruth Gordon gives an outstanding performance as Minnie Castavet.
The power of this movie lies in its many details -- the sets, the costumes, the lighting, the music, the dialog...It all comes together wonderfully -- at least until the last few minutes.
At that point -- when it is clear that the very worst fears have been realized -- it is an open question whether the ending is as good as it might have been. I felt very satisfied in that regard. The impulse to love in spite of horror is very powerful if not entirely convincing. But even if you don't agree, I believe this movie is still very close to being perfect.
Shenandoah (1965)
One of the greatest movies ever made
"Shenandoah" is an idealized portrait of what I think is great about America. Whether or not it realistically depicts the Civil War is something I cannot say. But it is deeply moving and intelligently written and acted. It is a beautifully filmed movie that satisfies on every level -- the mind, the heart, and the soul. If this movie does not make you shed a tear or two, you have no heart. Even the music is excellent. And the seemingly "on location" setting in the Virginia countryside is extraordinary. Jimmy Stewart, good in so many movies, really shines in this role. He is a gruff, hardworking farmer whose first concern is taking care of his large family. He is a widower who still misses his wife sixteen years after her death. Her dying wish to him was that he take the family to church every Sunday. He does this grudgingly. He has six boys and one daughter. The youngest boy is 16, the oldest son about 24. The civil war is raging through Virginia and he tries to stay out of it. He never owned slaves, and neither he nor his sons and one daughter believe in slavery. I won't give away any more, other than to say that the blurb on the DVD is accurate: He is finally forced to get involved, and his family pays a huge price for a war that they wanted no part of. There are lines in this movie that are classic. Rent or buy the DVD -- it is well worth it. "Shenandoah" belongs on everyone's "top 100" list, if not their "top 10" list.
Schindler's List (1993)
There are much better films about the Holocaust
Yet another pretentious, overblown "meditation" on a serious subject by a Hollywood director. That is how I would sum up "Schindler's List." But maybe my view is skewed by the fact that I have actually seen other movies that deal with this subject -- from "L'Enclos" (out of print) to "The Pawnbroker." "The Pawnbroker" is a devastating indictment of man's inhumanity to man. "Schindler's List" pales by comparison.
Looking at the details of "Schindler's List", the movie opens promisingly with a wonderful assortment of authentic German cabaret songs coupled with black and white period scenes meant to evoke the raciness and fun of Berlin before the Nazis rose to power.
All well and good. But then the movie falls apart in its depiction of a drunken, debauched and undisciplined SS concentration camp commander whose romps take place in a cliff-hanging house overlooking the camp.
This is so far from the reality of what took place in the camps, and the way they were organized, as to be silly.
Schindler's rescue of the Jews is decently portrayed, but the movie goes into "overblown" mode with its drawn-out portrayal of the train approaching the gates of Auschwitz.
Were there crashing cymbals, a hundred violins playing, and trumpet fanfares to signify to the audience that this moment was tragic in case they hadn't already figured that out?
I don't remember. Let's just say that Spielberg's approach -- in this and some of his other movies -- is the very opposite of subtle.
Now, I really have nothing against this movie otherwise. It's okay, that's all.
But I'm amazed at the adulation it is receiving from an apparently uncritical cadre of adoring fans.
Turning the Holocaust into what amounts to a soap opera and an ego trip for the director strikes me as pathetic. It seems that too many young directors in Spielberg's generation were given gold stars before they really deserved them. Not unlike kids in school today getting A's "just for being you."
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Pretentious twaddle
During the Vietnam era, you were either a "square" or "hip" -- with "hip" meaning pro-communist, anti-capitalist, pro-sexual-revolution, anti-mainstream American values. Hollywood directors generally chose to be "hip." The significance of this fact should become apparent in due course.
Now, a little boring history for those who can stomach it: U.S. troops were present in large numbers in South Vietnam from roughly 1962 to 1972. U.S. troops came home in '72, having successfully strengthened the South Vietnamese army (ARVN) so that it could defend South Vietnam from invasion by the North Vietnamese communists and from subversion by the South Vietnamese communist Viet Cong.
The ARVN did, in fact, successfully defend South Vietnam for almost three years. Then, a Democrat-controlled Congress cut off funding to the South Vietnamese in the wake of Republican President Nixon's resignation over the Watergate scandal. The North Vietnamese invaded, and South Vietnam fell.
Soon thereafter, the Communist Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia and tortured and murdered some two million innocent men, women and children. This is the true tragedy of the Vietnam war -- something that no Hollywood director to my knowledge has touched ("The Killing Fields" is not accompanied by a political explanation of the Cambodian Holocaust.)
Four years after the fall of South Vietnam, and seven years after U.S. troops left the country, Francis Ford Coppola made "Apocalypse Now." He was one of a slew of Hollywood directors who sought to capitalize on the deep well of anti-war sentiment in the United States. Well, let's examine such anti-war sentiment for a minute. Being anti-war is fine, but those who are against war are called upon to offer alternatives that work -- and they never do. Instead, they hold up the UN as some sort of ideal -- a UN made up mostly of undemocratic countries with no respect for human rights.
In the end, the Vietnam War was but one of a series of proxy wars between the communist Soviet Union (at times allied with communist China) and the capitalist West. The Korean War was the first major battle in this rivalry, where both sides sought to extend their influence while bleeding and demoralizing the other side. These proxy wars were a substitute for all-out nuclear war. Terrible things were done by both sides in this conflict, but I believe that the U.S. cause was a noble one. And it largely succeeded, in that the Soviet Union collapsed and freedom and prosperity expanded into Eastern Europe.
But the conduct of the Vietnam War by U.S. politicians was terrible at best. U.S. soldiers never lost a battle in Vietnam. But politicians in Washington would not allow them to keep the territory they had won. They refused to follow Barry Goldwater's advice, which was to "Win, or get the hell out!" They failed to mine Haiphong Harbor in North Vietnam to keep Soviet and communist Chinese supplies out of that country. They refused to invade Laos and Cambodia in order to close down the weapons supply line that ran along the Ho Chi Minh trail, ending only thirty miles from Saigon, the South Vietnamese capital.
In the meantime, Vietnam was the first televised war, and the U.S. media were largely left-wing (as they are today) and anti-war. During the Tet Offensive (a major defeat for the communists, and a major victory for the Americans), Walter Cronkite declared that America had "failed" in Vietnam. This was just one of many distortions by the media. The American public stopped supporting the war. And some celebrities -- like Jane Fonda -- actually rooted for victory by the communists.
What, then, do we see in "Apocalypse Now"? Nothing more than all the one-sidedly anti-American, anti-Vietnam-war stereotypes of the day: playing Wagner (subtle; I don't suppose that could be a suggestion that the Americans were the equivalent of Nazis?); showing a giggling soldier-moron in a helicopter randomly machine gunning innocent Vietnamese peasants (subtle; I don't suppose that could be a suggestion that the Americans were the equivalent of Nazis?); and so on and so forth.
Of course, Coppola wasn't satisfied addressing such "substantive" issues. His movie had to be a "grand vision" -- not unlike his "The Godfather." So he threw everything except the kitchen sink into this movie: the pretentious linkage he tried to make between his magnum opus and Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness" -- "Wow, man! That's heavy! Copolla is our Conrad!"; the psychedelic/surreal affectations (a first!); the "ironic" and "clever" juxtapositions (a battle mixed up with surfing); the "revelation" of "Ugly American" insensitivity; and so on.
Well, Copolla was preaching to the choir with this movie, and in this he was a great success. But there is no significance to this movie otherwise. If you really want to see enlightening scenes from Vietnam, rent the multi-disc documentary on the war (I forget the title; there are several.) One very moving scene shows U.S. soldiers singing "Silent Night" on the flare-lit battle-field on Christmas eve. Watching a documentary on the war might actually teach you something about that war -- a first! Otherwise, you're going to have to settle for Hollywood's version from the likes of Oliver Stone and Coppola.
The true subject of Coppola's movie, in my opinion, is Coppola's giant ego. The main secondary subject is the dumbing down of an American public that would uncritically eat up his "vision"; the exact same thing is true of Oliver Stone's various movies. Hollywood thinks that "Epatez les bourgeois!" is the last word in creativity, even when its arrows fall far short of the target.
That is the reason why most "serious" Hollywood movies, in my opinion, are overblown failures. And Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" surely stands at the very front of the line of those failures.
American History X (1998)
To get this movie, you have to read between the lines
On the surface, American History X is a preachy movie that tells us racism is bad. But the details of the movie undercut the preachiness and show that life is a bit more complicated than that.
We see why the white kids become racist against non-whites. First, their police officer Dad gets passed over for promotion in his job because he is white, and non-whites are favored over whites under the department's affirmative action policy.
Next, the beach town where they live is becoming integrated, and some white kids are beaten up by non-white kids. To defend themselves, they form a gang to counter the gangs of blacks and Latinos that have moved into their traditionally white neighborhood and schools.
Next, Derek, the neo-Nazi leader, complains about the fact that new non-white immigrants (both legal and illegal) are coming into their town, taking jobs away from unskilled whites, not assimilating into American culture, and getting government benefits not available to whites.
Last, there is racism directed at whites by some of the non-whites.
The question this movie poses is an important one: Can we be honest about the fact that what I have just talked about is going on (too many in our society deny all these things, or pretend they are not important), but still look at people as individuals and not pre-judge them on the basis of race?
Derek, the neo-Nazi leader, eventually meets a black inmate in prison who wins Derek over with his sense of humor. It turns out that the black is protecting Derek from other blacks and Latinos after Derek loses the protection of his neo-Nazi buddies because of a dispute between them.
Where the movie fails in my view (and of course, this view will be seen by many as politically incorrect) is in its transformation of Derek into someone who is now against racism simply because he made a black friend and may owe his life to that friend.
There is no good reason to believe that Derek's new-found ability to not pre-judge a person on the basis of that person's race means that he still doesn't believe that non-whites in general are being unfairly favored over whites in our society.
I myself object to the entire social discourse on race in our society today. It would be one thing if we had truly moved beyond judging people "by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character," but our "enlightened" society today never forgets the color of people's skin.
The difference between now and the time when Dr. King spoke is that today our society rewards people for being a certain race at the expense of people of another race. And so we never move beyond race to looking at people as individuals and rewarding them based on their character and efforts.
Many argue that we need to go through this period of racial favoritism in order to level a playing field that favored whites in the past, and still favors many whites today. Perhaps. But those who make this argument must be prepared for the consequences that result when people lose out on opportunities they would otherwise enjoy.
The Dereks of this world are not a figment of some screen-writer's imagination. And they did not create the problem that society now asks them to solve by putting their dreams on hold. I would be more inclined to support this leveling of the playing field if everyone shared in the burden. For example, the white leaders and politicians who support racial favoritism. Why do they never step aside and offer their own jobs, positions and money to non-whites? It is ironic that, in a supposed attempt to create social justice, only middle class and poor whites are expected to make the necessary sacrifices.
Perhaps the makers of American History X were inclined -- somewhat -- to agree with me because the movie ends with the brutal and apparently unprovoked murder of Derek's white brother by a black.
The movie thus subverts its own message that everything will be just hunky-dory if the neo-Nazis just forget about their grievances over race and -- indeed -- recognize that there was no foundation for those grievances in the first place.
Could this ambiguity in the movie have something to do with the disagreement between the star and the director? That is the question the movie left me with.
Anyway, it is a superb movie in terms of acting, cinematography, and so on, and is well worth watching.