Reviews

"Eyes Wide Shut" is, sadly, Stanley Kubrick's last picture. It is a stunning and grand epic, which could be called, '1999: A Sex Odyssey'. With all the media hype over the film and the filmmaker, I was interested to see how the film would stand up to all the wild rumours and expectations. Instead of getting a wild porno flick, Kubrick brought as a classy, slick story of two bored people who imagine life on the wild side but see how scary the scene is and bails out. Many people have really missed the point about this picture and have said some negative things. Trust me, this is a perfect swan song for the Master. 4 out 4 stars.

I came of age in New York City during the 1960s and shared many of the same trials and tribulations of Fritz the Cat. It's hard to find your kicks when everyone around you is spaced out and hung up on aggression. All us long-hairs got a bad rap, like Fritz, because we were confused about what it is we wanted. For those of us who lived, we began to age to the point of getting knowledge and understanding. Of course by the time we understood that it was too late to do anything about it. The scene was too weird and we were too confused. Fritz the Cat is like a lot of the guys I hung around with; full of ideas and short on ambition. This film is a perfect view of what some people saw in the 1960s. 3 1/2 stars out of 4.

I believe that Peter Bogdanovich is one of the most underrated filmmakers of the 1960s and 1970s because he has always been able to craft fine films that seem as real today as they did then. "Targets", his first film, is no exception.

Long before the debate over gun control became a national obsession, Bogdanovich and his then wife, Polly Platt, came up with a story about a man who is tired of the rut he is in and ends up on a killing spree. The other part of the story, which weaves well with the main section, deals with an aging horror star (played wonderfully by Boris Karloff) who wants to retire because real life is now scary then any of his films. The two are on a crash course that is spellbinding and heart-stopping.

Since the film was released in 1968 after both the murders of JFK, RFK and MLK Jr., the film was scaled down and thus became a forgotten classic. Look for Peter Bogdanovich as Sammy Michaels. This is a must see.

I have to admit that as dumb as this movie is I enjoyed. Maybe it's the Cold Warrior in me, but Ivan Drago was so evil (and buff) that I had chills go down my spine when Rock withstood the blows and scored another victory.

The plot is so silly and the story could have been written by Joesph Gobels, but the cartoon aspects of it made it work for me -- America conquers the "Evil Empire" once and for all (I don't think it was an accident that Soviet Union crumbled after this movie came out) and Rocky delivers a speech to the hostile crowd that suddenly forgets 40 years of anger and resentment and cheers! Perfect!

I'll give this movie a C- on its merits and a B for underscoring of the Cold War.

When I saw "Scream" I was thrilled that it did so well at the box office and with the (hip) film critics. It was a smart, funny and sometimes scary movie that defined the horror genre for Gen X.

But because of "Scream" we now have "Urban Legend", "The Faculty" and a film career for Usher. "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" is also on that list because it is a run of the mill slasher movie that isn't scary and isn't funny.

I like the idea of people trapped on an island with a killer on the loose ("Ten Little Indians"?), but even that fell flat with a rash of boring characters and predictable chills. I mean really, the white pot smoking "rasta" was the lamest character in a horror flick since Joan Ferra in "A Jump In the Dark". Brandy, who said she will win five Oscars, thinks she is a lot more cute then she really is. And Love Hewitt should really try and make a movie where she isn't the doe-eyed victim running around in a tight top -- OK, keep the tight tops.

"Scream" was a breath of fresh air in old premise, but now you have horror flicks ripping off a movie that was supposed to be a parody of the genre and not the source of "new" ideas.

Skip it.

I have seen this film at least five times and I still don't understand why I love it so much. Yes, it is a well written, well acted and a beautifully shot film, but I still don't know why this film found such a deep niche in my mind? I wasn't from a small Texas town, in fact I have only lived in big cities. I wasn't born in the 1940s or 1950s, but in the 1970s. And I sure as heck never went through what Tim Bottoms or Jeff Bridges characters did. Yet this movie has struck a cord in my heart and I think it is one that any fan of "New Hollywood" should see because it works as almost a precurser to the fall of that group of directors.

The film itself looks so wonderful in an airy black and white feel that sweeps over you like a gust of wind in the dry Texas heat. The young characters (Bottoms, Bridges, Sheppard, Quaid) are so wide-eyed and dopey, that it's like they aren't acting. And the older characters (Johnson, Leachman, Burstyn) are so bitter and jaded that you resent them for getting old and letting the world beat them. There isn't a false moment in the film. The last few moments of the film are so gut wrenching and pained that it was a wonder that the sequel ("Texasville") was so light-hearted and weak.

There isn't much fanfare for this film outside of movie buffs and Bogdanovich fans, which really amazes me because I think it was the high water maker of the decade (peaked too soon, I suppose) and of Bogdanovich's career. It wasn't even released on video until a few months ago. But that shouldn't stop anyone from renting it because it is a wonderful film.

Paul Newman has made a career out of playing the outside loner. That isn't to say that all of his characters are the same because that would be unfair to one of the silver screen's finest. Each of his characters have their own sense of rebellion and their own downfalls. "Hud" is perhaps the best performance of his early career because Hud is a mean son of a gun, who is very hard to like. But somehow you find yourself falling for his charm and rooting for him. Filmed in black and white, this film is not unlike Peter Bogdanovich's masterpiece "The Last Picture Show" in that it deals with a small town in Texas, which is about to leap into the 1960s. And much like "Picture Show" that change isn't always for the best. Newman is a loner working on his father's ranch along with his nephew, Lon, and the housekeeper, Alma. The story is told mostly through Lon's eyes, and at the start the viewer is made to like Hud because he bucks the small town and lives life by his rule. But for some reason Hud and his father (Homer) just don't see eye to eye. As the story unfolds we learn the darker side to Hud's wildness and, like Lon, we begin to resent his shallowness and his wayward ways. It is a very remarkable transition for Newman and the rest of the cast because nothing has really changed, we have just grown more aware of the situation.

This is an excellent cast from top to bottom, and a must see for any fan of Paul Newman.

Richard Nixon was a flawed human being. But aren't we all? How would you like it if someone waited for your death and then made a film about your life that was full of lies and theory? The film isn't even that good: too many flashbacks and too little reality. The scene where Nixon's dog bites his hand makes Nixon come off as some sort of monster. Kids, he wasn't.

I'm sure some of you remember the old commercials where a rubber faced man says at the end of his pitch, "Ya know what I mean, Vern?" And for those of you who don't remember, consider yourself lucky, because some how they turned a 30 spot on T.V. into an hour and a half mind-numbing "comedy". The film stars, Jim Varney, a somewhat (I stress somewhat) in enjoyable character with a unique ability to contort his face in strange ways (this is before Jim Carrey, kids). But that gets *real* old *real* fast. Varney is in reality a pretty decent fellow but this movie is probably something he wishes he could forget. Don't we all.

I have long since admired the work of Stanley Kubrick because he was able to capture the essence of every idea that he took on. In "2001" we, the viewer, got the chance to glimpse at the future as if the film where a documentary. In "Dr. Strangelove" Mr. Kubrick had us laughing all the way to the end of the world. But what Mr. Kubrick was able to achieve with 1975's "Barry Lyndon" is every bit as breathtaking and haunting as "2001" or any of his other films for that matter. It's not so much that one watches "Barry Lyndon" as the film washes over you, truly making you feel that it is 18th Century England. "Barry Lyndon" is not an easy film to watch for those with short attention spans or are unfamiliar with the works Mr. Kubrick because the film is a long, labourous journey. The film, which is 185 minutes long, is about a young man named Redmond Barry (played by a rather stiff but effective Ryan O'Neal) who yearns to crawl out of his poor Irish home and seek fame and fortune aboard. A duel fought over a women with a British officer forces Barry to flee and so his adventure begins. He ends up in both the English and the Prussian armies, fights in the Seven Years War, works as a spy and then marries the lovely Lady Lyndon. But this upwordly-mobile young man is doomed from the start and slowly his plans of grandeur dissolve into an abyss of despair and shame. Mr. Kubrick went to painstaking details in order to recreate the feel of the times (he used real costumes from the period, natural candlelight and actual houses of the age) and he passes with flying colors. This film embodies all that Mr. Kubrick had to say about about human nature and man's destiny (see "2001", "A Clockwork Orange" and "Full Metal Jacket"). The former Redmond Barry was doomed from the start to end up at the beginning. Rest in peace, Stanley.

I feel that this may the greatest motion picture of all-time because of the scope that the film covers. From the Dawn of Man to the great beyond, this movie has as much to say as anything I have ever seen. Even though the film was released a year before we landed on the moon, it doesn't seem dated or campy at all. It could have very well been made in 1999 (or even 2001) since it is so open-ended and broad in its message. I really enjoyed the scene where an ape ("moonwatcher") throws a bone used as a weapon into the sky only for a jump cut to take us 4,000 years into the future. The bone is now a space shuttle and the setting is space. Upon learning of Mr. Kubrick's death last week I had a vision of a "Star Stanley" floating towards earth as the music swells and the credits roll. His death is a loss to us all.

Nicholson and Quaid shine in this off-beat tale of two "lifers" in the Navy (Nicholson and Otis Young) who must escort a young seaman (Quaid) to prison. Nicholson and Young start to feel sorry for the young man's plight and take him around for his last stab at freedom until his eight year prison sentence begins. This is a wonderful film that never gets too mushy, but is moving and thoughtful at the same time.