Reviews

Well, I'll begin by saying that I did not make it through the movie. I made it to the one hour point and gave-up. I wasn't going to write a review based on that fact but then I saw another reviewer only made it to 45 minutes. That hour I watched the movie, The Fisher King came off as just weird. In my book, "weird" is rarely good. Personally, I need regular, basically realistic characters whose behavior is understandable. The behavior can be odd, violent. Pitiable, but given the plot of the movie, the behavior has to be somewhat realistic, and understandable. In my book, that's where The Fisher King missed the target.

So, I gave The Fisher King a "no" about halfway through. The movie was not going to redeem itself in the second half. It had already taken too much water. I'll paraphrase Roger Ebert (or was it Gene Siskel?), "give a movie two reels and if it doesn't have you on board by that point, hit the exit." The Fisher King made me hit the exit.

I started watching "Synecdoche, New York" after being told that it might be a little complicated in its presentation and therefore hard to follow every detail. I correctly translated that warning into "it is an artsy film". And it was.

"Synecdoche, New York" is basically a story that follows the life of a relatively young man, an off-Broadway theater director, through the years, until at the end he is old and on the verge of death. It is a story not told in a traditional manner. A lot of it is metaphorical. There is his failed marriage, problems with loving relationships, and deteriorating health.

It isn't exactly my kind of movie. I'll bet I missed a lot of the symbolism because I'm not going to overanalyze scenes. If I'm required to think deeply about something, it's going to be on how to save the world, or more likely, how to concoct an excuse to get me out of a bind. But if at the end of movies, you break them down with deep cerebral conversations with others, then "Synecdoche, New York" might be perfect for you.

I'll just start off by saying that I was impressed, bordering on being amazed by The Big Trail. It was truly an epic. It was about a pioneer, covered wagon train, destination the American West. It was not simply about a half dozen wagons being attacked by Indians. It was a well-filmed story of some 50 wagons lumbering through wind, mud, snowstorms, crossing rivers and even scaling down cliffs, wagons, livestock and all. And yes, there was an Indian attack, too. In the middle of all of this was a slow-developing romance between the John Wayne's scout character and a single young woman (well-played by Marguerite Churchill) going west with her siblings.

The secondary characters all seemed surprising realistic. The men had beards and were dressed in rag-tag clothing that seemed about right for pioneer men in the wilderness. Most of the women were hardy, unglamorous and plainspoken.

About halfway through my viewing, I noticed that it was being shown in widescreen. At first I thought that the particular print had been re-edited in recent years to be reissued in widescreen, probably for DVD. But later it was said that the movie was actually filmed in 70mm, which I believe was the rare widescreen of that day.

Anyhow, The Big Trail surprised me in a lot of ways and needless to say, I highly recommend it.

A timid, inexperienced army officer is in charge of a wilderness military fort being threatened by Indians. Some of the soldiers state their discontent with the officer, but not Wells Fargo's Jim Hardie who came into the fort on a stagecoach.

A scout is sent out from the fort hoping to reach a calvary brigade for help. When he fails, the timid army officer figures on giving it a try. Hardie thinks the officer is too valuable there at the fort so after a scuffle and knocking-out the officer, he, Jim Hardie figures on sneaking over the wall, stealing a horse from an Indian, and riding for help. Does Hardie succeed? You'll have to see the episode for yourself, but I'll give you a hint, you've seen Fort Massacre, or TV shows just like it, a million times.

The most interesting thing about this Wells Fargo episode is the teeth of scout Billy Welch, played by Peter Dunn. Terrible dental work. I can only hope that those choppers were not real and were "make-up". Peter Dunn himself was okay in the part as a buckskin-wearing Old West scout. Unfortunately, his performance was upstaged by his teeth.

Many years ago, I saw two, maybe three of the Death Wish sagas starring Charles Bronson. Much more recently there are the "Taken" movies with Liam Neeson. I mention these film franchises because The Equalizer(s) are much the same, albeit the Equalizer(s) have a bigger budget and are better than those Death Wish films. Still, all of these movies have to do with bad guys who need to be killed with the general theme of the movies being, how is the hero going to kill them? What innovative method is going to be used?

I have wondered if Denzel Washington is proud of The Equalizer movies. That's a real and not a rhetorical question. I'm sure he's making a fortune on them. I can't criticize Washington for making them because I like these movies. They give me my quota of fake violence, some of which is so absurd, it is chuckle-out-loud funny.

Anyway, that's my take on The Equalizer. Don't feel bad if you in some manner actually enjoy some villain getting impaled on the pointed edge of a corkscrew. He was a villain, after all.

I saw Aladdin on TV. I hope they did not cut much out. Hopefully, none. I think the best part of the movie is the genie. Robin Williams is the voice and really. A lot of the comical, maniac behavior seems to be taken from his personality. But the genie isn't the only good thing about Aladdin. The diabolical bad guy, Jafar, is also very good, that is, he's good at being very bad. I'll bet a lot of viewers enjoyed Jafar's parrot, voiced by Gilbert Gottfried. To be honest, he kind of annoyed me. On the other hand, Princess Jasmine may have been the most attractive animated female Disney character since Sleeping Beauty.

The storyline was pretty simple. The young princess hates the fact that she has no control over her life. One day she flees the palace to get a taste of real live. She doesn't realize that items have to be purchased and not just picked up and carried away. And that's where the trouble begins. But a young man, Aladdin, living on the streets, comes to her rescue. A short while later, the magic lamp is discovered. As for the story, I'll stop there.

Anyhow, Aladdin is a very good movie, if someone were to claim that it rivaled any of the past Disney classic animated features, I don't think I'd put up much of an argument. That's pretty high praise.

Like many of the old, classic films I see these days, I saw Pushover on TV. The one element of the movie that I had a tough time getting past was young and gorgeous Kim Novak falling for a seemingly ordinary, middle-age guy, Fred MacMurray. While Novak's character was seducing the MacMurray character, I was muttering to Novak's Lona McLane, "C'mon, you're young and absolutely stunning, he's some dufus 25-years-older, wearing a hat".

Anyway, the actual plot of the cop-goes-bad movie was pretty complicated but at least it was confined to only a few characters. I think that what makes the movie better than average is the acting and the cinematography. MacMurray may have been miscast, but he tried his best. E. G. Marshall was good as a police lieutenant and Dorothy Malone did well, too, as a neighbor, in her moments on the screen.

I have an urge to compare Pushover to Double Indemnity. Both movies have MacMurray, but what makes them similar is the plotlines. Both films are film noir though a decade apart. Pushover is pretty good. Double Indemnity is considered a screen classic. But if you like one, you would probably like the other.

I watched The Passenger on TCM recently. I am a big Jack Nicholson fan. Perhaps my favorite movie is, in fact, Chinatown. Five Easy Pieces of also great. The Passenger was not great, in my opinion. It was rated high on TCM. What did it get, 7.5 stars? That rating is undeserved, again, in my opinion. I'm thinking that rating comes from people who saw a movie with Nicholson playing a serious character in what was basically a foreign movie and those viewers said, wow, that was one amazing movie. That's what they SAID. That's not what they thought. If they were forthright, they would have said, that was a curious movie and to be honest, a lot of it seemed muddled and confusing. The movie was a slow boat, they would have continued in their analysis, that did not take me very far, emotionally. They would have given it 6 stars, just like I gave it, me, an ordinary, not particularly sophisticated movie viewer. But an honest movie viewer.

When any kind of religious, Christian-based movie came out back in the late 50s to the early 60s, my mother would take my three sisters and me to the theater to see it. That would include, among others, Ben Hur and of course King of Kings. My mom was not overly religious. But she figured that a little religion wouldn't do any of us any harm. When King of Kings hit the theaters in 1961, I was 10 years old. I know that it was at least a half decent movie because for more than a week after seeing it I did not cuss and on Sunday, I willingly went to church. Of course, in due time the effects of the movie wore-off and I went back to my old ways.

Of all the movies that feature Jesus, King of Kings' Jesus is easily the most handsome. Played by Jeffrey Hunter with white teeth, longish hair, a trimmed beard and deep blue eyes, he looked like some stylish, 1960s California hippie. The performances, including Hunter's, are all pretty good but except for some fighting scenes, everything seems to be going in slow motion, at least a little. A lot of the dialogue is spoken in a gentle, pensive manner. Since the story is actually complicated, the film has periods of narration to let the viewer know who is doing what, and why they are doing it.

King of Kings was supposedly filmed on a tight budget, but you can't tell. The sets look pretty realistic, and they did not skimp on the size of the cast. There were a lot of extras. Anyway, looking back at what I have just written, there are no spoilers, but I think we all know how the story ends, right?

I started watching So Help ME Todd because it followed Ghosts. I would catch the first minute or two of So Help Me Todd and would get mildly interested and keep watching. It's a comedy about a young detective working with his mother, who is a respected lawyer.

My complaint is that everything is just a little bit hurried. The storyline moves along hurriedly. The characters interact hurriedly. The dialogue is spoken hurriedly. I think that you get the idea. The show is funny but not hysterical. It is "smile" funny, sometimes "chuckle" funny, but rarely "laughter" funny. The mystery-plots can be pretty good. In fact, in some episodes they may be the best element.

I try to watch every new episode of So Help Me Todd but when I realize that I have missed one, I don't think of it as a big loss. You can think of that sentence as kind of my short, simplified review.

Given the plot and the mood of this movie, it's going to be difficult to avoiding putting in a spoiler, but I'll give it a try. The film is about a couple on the verge of marriage, visiting Paris. Gil is a writer who fantasize about the Paris of the 1920s, the composers, the painters, the writers. One night he leaves his hotel, walks alone through the streets of Paris, and gets lost. At the stroke of midnight, still lost and trying to get his bearings, a 1920-ish car pulls by, opens a door and invites him for a ride. After a bit of confusion, he realizes that he is has been transported back in the 1920s, if only for a few hours. Over the next week or so, he walks to the same street corner, and at midnight, the old car shows up to take him back to the 1920s. He meets all of the people he admired from that period in time. I'll stop there and give nothing more away to anyone who might happen to read this review.

The story, and the movie were vintage Allen. I have not seen anywhere near all his movies but Midnight In Paris in some ways reminded me of one or two of them. Radio Days and The Purple Rose Of Cairo come to mind more than any of the others.

I thought the cast did well, but I have no idea how Owen Wilson got the lead role. I can think of about a dozen actors who would have been a better choice. Maybe past accusations concerning Allen's family have so damaged his reputation that it has severely limited who is willing to work for him. I don't know that for sure. I'm just throwing it out there.

Anyway, Midnight In Paris is well worth watching, assuming you are looking for a smart, clever, romantic movie and not fist fights and car chases. There, I did it, a review free of a spoiler.

When looking back on Hitchcock's long career, he brought us some great movies. My favorite is North By Northwest but there are plenty that are in the same ballpark. Spellbound is not one of them. I can't complain about the cast. Ingrid Bergman, Gregory Peck, Leo G. Carroll. Top notch. There was plenty of money put into the project. It was not a cheap movie. So, why in the world did they go with such a farfetched plotline? It wasn't even plausible. I have a feeling that is why the story's only murder was not shown, not even in flashback. The details of the homicidal act were just too improbable. I thought about describing all of that, but it would require not only a lot of explaining, but also this review would have the ill-fated "spoiler" tag put on it. I think it says enough that I gave Spellbound a "6" rating. When it comes to a Hitchcock movie, that's about as low as I go.

I watched Libel recently on TCM. It had very good performances by a British cast (in a British production). The general theme asked the question, "despite all evidence, do you believe the words of a loved one despite condemning evidence?" I'll have to stop there or check the "spoiler" box. The one big hurdle a viewer, at least THIS viewer had to overcome is, can two unrelated people look so much alike that not even loved ones and relatives can tell them apart? This gimmick has appeared in other movies in the history of cinema. It was pretty much there in the 60s TV series "The Patty Duke Show". But my answer to that question is, no, two people cannot look that much alike, not in real life. Still, I gave the snafu a pass and hung in there to the end of the film. Given the ending of Libel, I was glad I did. I gave the film 6 out of 10. It would have gotten an 8 if I were a little less critical of the plot gimmick.

I watched Dune on TV. I got a little nervous when I saw the "Part 1" appear under the title as the movie began. It was not a good sign. Anyway, I thought Dune's special effects were great. I am an "older" viewer so I actually remember Claymation. Thank god Dune had none of that. Beyond the special effects, I personally cannot recommend the film. The biggest complaint is a VERY big complaint... I did not know what was going on. Once I got beyond the main characters, I did not know who the good guys were, or the bad. I did not know why anyone was fighting. Then, when all was said and done, we all have to wait for part 2. Well, not all of us. I won't.

For the record, I watched Dune with four friends. When the movie ended, and the curtain fell (figuratively speaking), I asked "Well, did anyone understand what was going on in that movie?" Smiles and headshakes were the answers. One person said that he had heard that it helped to read the book. Maybe, but I was watching a movie.

I'm 72 years old. I saw the 1961 version when I was about 15 years old on TV a few years after its release. I immediately thought it was great. One of the finest movies ever. I say that because the comparison with the two versions is unavoidable. The newer version had big shoes to fill. In my opinion, it didn't quite make it. Close, but not quite. The older and the newer version are equal in most ways. The acting in both is good. The casting is undoubtedly better in the 2021 version. The one thing that makes the older version better is that in the scenes with violence, the 1961 version had a kind of "theatrical" form of violence. Whereas the 2021 version had more of a contemporary, realistic form of violence. When it comes to moving from violence right into singing and dancing, the theatrical form of violence makes for a better transition. To give the newer version its due, some of why it is rated below the older version is not because the 1961 version is so much better. It is because the older version holds sentimental value to many moviegoers.

I just read where this movie had the "perfect cast". I then went to this website to see how it fared. Well, apparently, 7.7. I saw this movie in the theaters when it came out. I thought it was a total waste of some good talent, and undoubtedly a lot of money, on one lousy script. In fact, I'm not certain that there was a script. I wonder if Brad Pitt saw that Matt Damon had signed on to be in the movie and so he, Brad Pitt decided to come aboard. And since the perspective movie had those two megastars in the cast, George Clooney decided to join in too. It has to be a pretty good movie, he might have thought.

Given the dialogue, here's what I figure went on during filming. With the cameras not rolling for a scene, George said to Brad, "Hey, try to think of something funny to say and I'll try to think of an ad lib in reply." After that scene was shot, Matt Damon came on the set and said, "Okay, my turn to try to think of something funny to say." Of course, nothing really funny or clever was ever said and in fact the film was boring. And for the record, Oceans 12, released a few years later, was just about as bad.

I watched Tea and Sympathy recently on TCM. I knew nothing about it other than it got pretty good reviews. The plot's location was a boarding school for young men. The story focused on one student, Tom, who had effeminate mannerisms and interests, or so it was perceived by the other characters in the movie. The result was a sensitive young man ridiculed by the other students and adults. Throughout the film, the general goal by all the characters, was to transform Tom into a young man with more masculine traits. The boarding house resident houseparents, a married couple played by Deborah Kerr and Lief Erickson, had two different philosophies on how to go about changing Tom into a more conventional young man. The Kerr character believed the best approach was sympathy and compassion, the Erickson philosophy was a more "tough love" approach.

If Tea and Sympathy were made 30 years later than it was, the plot would have been radically different. Tom would have been gay rather than an effeminate heterosexual. The plotline would have been about changing the mindset of the other characters into the philosophy that no two humans are alike, and those differences need not be vanquished but rather they should be respected.

So, anyway, for me, Tea and Sympathy's significance was as a trip back into bygone mid 20th century social sentiments as opposed to that of a valued social statement. Not a bad movie, but not what it once was intended to be.

I first saw Hoosiers decades ago. I don't remember whether it was on TV or in the theater. I watched it again a few months ago on TV in a version edited to fit a time slot. I didn't realize how much had been removed from the original version until i saw it yesterday on TCM. They must have removed 15 minutes. Anyway, I like the movie but anyone who really knows basketball will shake their head in agony. I am referring mostly to the concept of an offense that demands "four passes before anyone shoots". It was a plot ploy to make the coach, played by Gene Hackman, the ironclad commander of the team that no one dare disobey. Such a strategy would result in forgoing scoring chances not to mention that with every pass there is an element of risk. How about a realistic plot ploy such as one player must remain ready to stop any opposition fast-break?

Okay, enough of that complaint. My only other complaint is that the Gene Hackman character was too old for the Barbara Hershey character. This is a complaint that comes out of me more than it would most movie-watchers. Bogey characters were too old for Bacall characters and also the Ingred Bergman character in Casablanca. Gary Cooper's marshal in High Noon was too old for Grace Kelly's character. You'd think I'd be used to it. Actually, it's a relatively new complain of mine.

Anyhow, I liked how Hoosiers brought in the drunken father into the plot and how he was rehabilitated mostly by the coach. I like the way the schoolteacher (Hershey) was finally able to see the worth of both sports, and the worth of the sport's coach (Hackman). And I like the early 1950s setting of the movie. It is a bygone era, perfect for the sentimentality at the film's conclusion.

This is the type of subject I like for a movie. I really liked The Right Stuff. Same with Apollo 13. I've watched The Martian three times. You get the idea. I thought First Man was a cut below any of those I just named. A BIG cut, truth be known. First Man was a little slower moving but my biggest problem was the photography. The camera wobbled around all the way through the movie. There were close-ups that would have been better filmed from 10 feet away, 10 feet away with a steadier camera. Truth is, I am right now about 15 minutes from the end of the film, but I paused it because I had become sufficiently annoyed that to let off a little steam, I needed to write a critical review. You're reading it. Anyway, I'm done writing. I feel better now. I'll probably even go back and watch the movie to its conclusion... probably.

I saw Thunder Road on Saturday afternoon TV in the early 1960s when I was about 10 years old. I thought the film was "really cool". Why wouldn't I, it had guns, tough guys and hot cars. By the time I was about 15, Thunder Road had gained a kind of cult status with my pals. That was a good 55 years ago.

Yesterday I saw Thunder Road again. This time on TCM. I can see why it still has (or perhaps has a new, wider) cult status. It's not because it is good cinema. It is more because it is odd cinema. The reality is, Thunder Road isn't really a very good movie, at least not by today's standards. There are no computer-generated special effects, of course. That would help. The overall film budget is clearly not there. Perhaps the one thing that jumps out at me more than anything is the absolutely terrible acting by nightclub singer Keely Smith. If you are looking to put yourself in a kind of bemused agony, her performance alone makes it almost worth seeing the movie. Robert Mitchum's son, James Mitchum, doesn't do much better.

Anyway, despite expressing these elements of negativity, I'm glad I revisited the movie, all these years later. I can still appreciate it, although not as much, or in the same ways I did back in my youth. I gave it 6 stars. I think that's fair.

Eyes Wide Shut was a curious movie. Not good exactly, just curious. Everything seem to be going in slow motion and drawn-out. Things were a bit out-of-kilter too, intentionally, I think. None of the characters seemed real or, for that matter, realistic. Again, I think that was intentional. Unfortunately, I had the feeling that whoever produced the movie had a budget bigger and better than the movie's plot. They did know that sex, and some nudity, would help. And in some ways I think it did help. After all, I did make it to the end of the movie. And that was not because of the plot.

I'm a nostalgic guy. At 71 years old, I am particularly nostalgic for the late 1960s. Those sentimental feelings were put to full throttle while watching The Thomas Crown Affair. There was Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway, both dressed in impeccable late 60s garb. There were no cellphones or desktop computers to be seen. But there were plenty of phonebooths and fedora hats. There was even a Ford station wagon.

As for the substance of the movie, don't think about it too hard or you will see the holes in the plot. If you just go along with the flow, then it becomes a decent drama. I feel the need to warn anyone reading this review that there are no car chases, no fistfights, no shootouts. So, the story in and of itself might not be enough for a lot of people. It's a two-person, romantic, even amorous cat-and-mouse crime caper, late 60's style. If that is your cup of tea, then The Thomas Crown Affair is must-see. If not, it still ain't bad.