Reviews

Quite a promising concept, but totally unbelievable in its depiction of contemporary rich kids who have the morality of vipers and the drug habits of disco-era degenerates. For some odd reason, there's not a single cell phone, laptop, or computer in the whole movie despite being set in a high school full of wealthy delinquents. Plus the administration allows the cool kids' drug operations to persist-- since the entire staff is just one guy, and there's not a single teacher in the whole place. The ultimate lack of resolution to the story is as bankrupt as the future of these aimless posers.

I appreciate that the film features a multiracial cast, and mostly teens of color, which is still lacking in American movies despite the industry's efforts to increase diversity. But the sheer venality and villainy of these students makes them worthless as role models, denying the film's evident ambitions to promote young Black female empowerment. Another film from the same year, 'Premature', achieves that ambition so much more, and is far more fulfilling.

This is bad at a level that only 1980 can comprehend.

The plot, such as it is, takes a lame biblical parable about morals in the disco era and fuses it with a set of intolerable (and often interminable) musical numbers that are stuffed with outre costumes, awkward choreography, and cheap sets. There could be some interest here for those who enjoyed the prior trippy rock musicals of the '70s (such as 'Tommy' and 'Rocky Horror') but the excesses of those did not defeat their abilities to entertain. 'The Apple' is so puerile and insulting that it's just boring. Even the camp and queer aspects of the proceedings hold scant redeeming interest.

Have at it if you really want a uniquely indulgent bit of cult mania; avoid it otherwise.

For a melodrama with a modest budget, this production is surprisingly sophisticated. You may find the story somewhat plodding, particularly in the first half, but after Lydia discovers her true calling in helping blind children, the cinematography takes on some striking symbolism. You can further appreciate the attention to detail in some of the sets and costumes, particularly when attention is drawn to darkness.

Consider that this film was made in 1941 as the U.S. was poised to enter the war already raging in Europe, and women would soon be compelled to work and sacrifice. The romantic repression of Lydia thus seems irrational in context, and the ending suggests as much. It pre-dates the Hollywood work of Sirk, who would critique American clichés in his great '50s films, and similarly exposes some of the delusions of masochistic romance.

This little-known movie caught me by surprise, for all kinds of reasons, not the least being Nicholas Ray's awkward adventure into Douglas Sirk territory. More so, the story's focus on the now-more-timely topic of prescription drug addiction is captivating to see from a perspective 60 years later. As a piece of post-war cultural history, it is compelling, dealing as it does with doubts about medicine and concerns about mental illness. As a movie though, I was distracted by its stiff production and histrionic message. It sure is strange enough to keep your attention in any case.

I studied this film for my book "Fade to Gray: Aging in American Cinema" (2016) and found it entirely surprising. The divergent reviews that other users have shared do not surprise me; the low-budget production and emotional story are going to put off some less sophisticated viewers. Yet if you want a film that deals with the unusual subject of how to account for your life in old age (not like the films about middle-aged folks to which this is erroneously compared), then this is a sensitive and intriguing take on the subject.

Kirk Douglas gives a compelling performance in his late 80s as a dying movie director confronting mystic visions of a son he never came to love, and perceptively conveys his cathartic liberation from egotism as he achieves grace in his final hours. Despite the limitations of the lengthy flashbacks to the son's life, the story comes together well, and anyone who is a parent can relate to the conclusion in which Douglas just wants his unknown son to be happy.

Not many American films afford elder characters such dignified deaths. In fact, my co-author Nancy McVittie and I studied hundreds of U.S. films about older people and found very few that portrayed them dying with dignity (most of the time their deaths are dramatic and sensational, or more often, completely postponed or set off screen). This is the list we would count in the "dignified" category, although of course others are arguable:

Heaven Can Wait (1943); Kim (1950); Little Big Man (1970); Being There (1979); Rocket Gibraltar; (1988); Meet Joe Black (1998); Big Fish (2003); The Bucket List (2007); Hannah Free (2009); Beginners (2010)

I'm a film professor, and this is one that had me in knots because I appreciate it as an artifact but also cringe at its awkward elements. I'll say this much: after good old Ben Mankiewicz on TCM told us at the start that the two planes in the film are flying on a collision course toward each other, I could not turn it off without seeing where all its hokey characters ended up.

Yes, the film uses that recurring interior dialogue device (move in to close up, then voice-over, along the lines of, "That's funny, Jim usually likes my coffee..."), but there are more gems of discomfort throughout, like characters way too self-conscious about their looks and some smarmy sexual jokes. And you'll be tickled to see that coach accommodations in 1960 were far better than first class today.

Just stick around for the collision, which pays off not only for its cheap special effects (which appear to have been shot with a little boy's toys in his basement), but far more so for its astonishing portrait of passengers laughing as they plummet to almost certain death. Warner Bros. apparently knew the audience would not only accept the fake effects and delusional behavior, but that the crowd would not care at all that the two military pilots-- one of whom is choosing between marriage and the Naval Academy-- perish in a fireball, which is summarily ignored for the rest of the film! With all the advances in aviation since 1960, there's still no way an airliner could take a hit from a fighter jet and land with only a few casualties. But like most any disaster, you are just too morbidly curious to look away from this one...

I study teen cinema as an academic (Generation Multiplex: The Image of Youth in American Cinema Since 1980) so I have seen many hundred of films about teenagers. This LMN production is not meant to provide laughs and thrills, but at least it's not too preachy about its message (choking is indeed stupid), and better yet, it delves into the personal reasons why the two lead girls become involved in the practice. It's at least worth seeing to talk with teens about trying dangerous behavior for its own thrill, especially in an era when youth are trying to find ever-greater "extreme" behavior to stand out and/or fit in.

The actors throughout-- both the teens and the adults-- do fine, believable work. And the script does not try to be too hip with teen lingo or attitudes. The kids use the relevant amount of contemporary technology and have realistic parents. They are a little wealthier than average teens, which is the case in almost all teen movies. The protagonist faces legitimate pressure about graduating from high school and going to college, and has a boy crush that is handled sincerely.

SPOILERS: The images that the girls envision when unconscious are rather dramatic, and even beautiful. I am not sure that this is the best approach to discourage the practice! After all, dreaming when naturally asleep is dramatic and beautiful, but not dangerous. The core issue among the girls is about acceptance and pressure (both with peers and adults), so I am not sure why the producers bothered to render any imagery for the choking.

You may have an issue with the ending, which plays it too safe (or is simply too ambiguous) about the fate of the "bad" girl who leads the "good" girl into the choking game. You know that she will pay some kind of price, because the bad influence always does, but just what happens to her, on a medical level, is so vague that it might lead some younger viewers to assume the girl will be okay, when the suggestion is otherwise made that she has suffered permanent lifelong damage. I am not sure why the producers chose this approach.

I am also unsure of the alarming statistics posted before the end credits. Young people may be resistant to view choking as an epidemic when less than 10% of teens try it. Again, the film may be more valuable to foster discussion about overall dangerous behavior among teens, especially that which may seem morally acceptable because it is not illegal. At one point the teens down alcohol at at party, which is passé compared to choking, and I think that gets at its appeal, of course.

This is one of those undeniably intriguing films of the post-war era where Hollywood was trying to pull together multiple elements to appeal to multiple audiences.

You have the screen legend Joan Crawford playing a lonely spinster. She meets a confident young man who happens to have a gorgeous ex-wife and an unusually smarmy father. Not knowing about these relatives nor the trouble they have caused him, our heroine marries the young charmer and proceeds to suffer far more than she ever did when she was alone, which makes it all so worth it.

Director Aldrich falls prey to exaggeration late in the film when Crawford is at her worst, but otherwise his work is eerily effective, as we get caught up in the mystery of just what the hell is wrong with this dude. Aldrich uses noir style to accentuate the tensions, grossly over- lighting some scenes to force the contrast, especially as the contrasts between the characters become more extreme later in the film.

You can really relish how insanely the psychiatric field is represented, which brutalizes the young man into a zombie so he can accept the brutality put upon him by his father and ex- wife. And lest you fret, the "cure" for his trauma does not make him want to leave his cougar lover in the end, it only makes them a more stable couple-- which is actually a slight shift in the melodramatic tradition of the woman's suffering being eternal.

I happened to catch the beginning of this around midnight on TCM and though I would just watch a little to see how the May-December romance was set up. After the first scene between Crawford and Robertson, I was engrossed, because it offers so much more than I expected.

This is one of those pretentious films that a lot of Anderson fans will claim achieves some kind of grace, but all it does is bore. Anderson has seriously gone too far with the languid shots that just go on forever, because he loves that. And go ahead and love Anderson if you have the time to watch very little happen for well over two hours.

Sure, the story could have been an intriguing expose on the emergence of Scientology and other cults after WWII-- and of course the Scientology folks would never allow it to be named specifically-- but all it says is that crazy people follow other crazy people. Anderson does draw out excellent performances from Phoenix and Hoffman, but they spend so much damn time just looking and walking around. Because that gives the film nuance, sure.

Anderson even inserts his own inside joke about his films, when The Master publishes his second verbose tome and a critic says he could have cut it down to 3 pages. Anderson did well to make a sweet romance, "Punch-Drunk Love", in 90 minutes, and that film was fulfilling. This is just a bunch of dreck the producers are indulging so that Anderson can win the favor of equally pretentious fans.

Other reviews speak to the story's surprises quite well, and I agree that the acting by the four key players is superb.

What makes this film more special than its twists and performances is the fact that it explores love among elderly people without being demeaning, and without sentimentalizing them into goofy old codgers. Landau conveys an excitement for romance that anyone of any age can relate to, and Burstyn is just so convincing in her role, which is more demanding than it first seems. Hollywood tends to make old men horny and vulgar, with old women being prudish and celibate, while this fine indie production is able to bring out many nuances within these complex, venerable lovebirds.

Just BE PATIENT if you become frustrated with the lack of character development. I found this frustrating at first, but there are important reasons-- both within the story and in terms of how society treats the elderly-- why we do not learn much "background information" about these characters. Hollywood movies about the elderly go to great lengths to have old characters tell stories about their younger days, and to explain how they came to be the cranky or corny curmudgeons they are today. This movie lets you spend some time simply appreciating the unexpected romance between two deserving people.

And as a Christmas movie, I think anyone past childhood would like this.

In fact, anyone who does not like this movie is probably not yet dealing with adulthood.

There have been very few films that reflect on the lives of gay people in their later years, after the thrills of youthful romance have given over to the practicalities of health needs, while abiding love remains. This is a tender yet fraught story about an elderly lesbian still so deeply connected to the one true love she has known since her childhood, yet kept from visiting her in the same nursing home where they both reside, because she is not "legally" family.

Thus the film deals with a lot of interesting issues: how our youthful pasts influence and interfere with our older age; how religious and social oppression can restrict love between same-sex partners; how legal issues-- especially in the remaining states that deny marriage equality-- restrict the access of same-sex partners to each other; how euthanasia may be the most humane confrontation with death at the end of life.

And the film handles this heavy agenda with concision, challenging us to think about these women's long lives from the 1920s to present while also celebrating the joys and torments of enduring love. The script is clearly based on a play set primarily in one room, while the direction utilizes exteriors rather well in the many flashback scenes of the protagonist. No one should be criticizing this film for its low production values; the resonance here comes from the story and the very competent acting.

Sharon Gless is indeed the star, and fits the title role completely. Also pay attention to the actor who plays young Greta, who has such a natural sense of style and relation to the older characters, and who has since become transgendered. S/he really owns her character, and should gain more attention in other films, within and beyond the GLBT market.

This is a refreshing examination of three women, whose only apparent connection is a local spa where they happen to enjoy steam baths at the same time.

Their ages are roughly 20, 40, and 80, and the generational differences between them are portrayed as they each prepare for a first date with someone new. The oldest, played by the legendary Ruby Dee, is mourning the loss of her husband and happens to meet a nice local man whom she agrees to have over for dinner. Ally Sheedy plays the middle-aged woman, frustrated by her ex-husband's manipulation of their son but flirtatious with the boy's football coach who is half her age. Relative newcomer Kate Siegel plays a college student with overbearing religious parents and is excited to explore her first lesbian relationship.

You can expect some awkward aspects to the production such as lengthy shots and awkward framing (and steam seems to fill rooms that are not even in the spa), but the actresses all give great performances, and most importantly, these are roles that you do not see in Hollywood movies. Elderly women falling in love are almost never portrayed, and sexy single mothers tend to be so much more neurotic than Sheedy is here. The college lesbian is a little underdeveloped, as if her attraction to girls suddenly happens when she sees a ravishing lass at school, but her sexual exploration is not exploitative or melodramatic.

Each woman faces joy and despair in their respective romances, with Dee's being the most complex, and ultimately, the most powerful. Similar to her character here, Dee's real-life husband Ossie Davis died the year before, and she conveys such wise pain in her scenes. Hers is also the rarest of the three characters, yet they are all worth appreciating for their realism, which is ironically distinct from the norm we are so often shown in movies about women.

I have published three books on the roles of teenagers in movies, and I can say with confidence that few of them depict early adolescence as delicately as this film. Some viewers may find it too delicate in that regard-- there's little violence and no sex, no drugs or drinking, no insanity-- yet it shows the calculated anxiety that teens deal with when they are bullied and ostracized.

Young viewers should be happy that the protagonists do not play into their victim roles, and learn to gain confidence in a slowly realistic way. Sure, it's a boy and girl on the edge of their sexual awakening, but sex has yet to become an issue in their lives; self-esteem and survival are much higher priorities.

Parents will be happy that the taboos of so many teen movies are not broached here, and that the only parent shown in the film is not bumbling or mean but actually accomplished and concerned.

The novel the film is based on is probably better, because you can just feel the character development that it must have conveyed in many words which is here reduced to a few lines of dialogue and the actors' behavior. Still, there is plenty here to interest and provoke young people-- as other comments have indicated-- and it's a nice alternative to many of the harsher, commercialized films that Hollywood pushes on youth today.

And just in case you get to the ending hoping for a bigger resolution (spoiler alert...), the final lines of the film are written and not spoken, and they powerfully convey perhaps the greatest kind of longing and confession that young teens have so energetically packed inside themselves, roaring to get out.

This movie is so inept on so many levels, its only use is to study how cheap production values defeat all aspects of a film.

The entire soundtrack-- and I mean dialogue, effects, and music-- must have been re- dubbed in a metal bathroom. (One person is credited with about 90% of the audio work.) The flat digital visuals look like they were shot on old 8mm stock with lights from a local hardware store. The attempts at blood-and-guts gore are entirely amateur. And the already flaccid script did not even merit an ending.

Maybe some real zombie completists will want to see this to explore the truly worst of the genre. I wanted to see it as a teen horror film, and it offers nothing worthwhile in that regard.

I enjoy recommending films that are bizarre or extreme, but this is just stupid.

However... You might want to watch the "making of doc" that is included on the DVD, because it shows the sincere mania that is grassroots filmmaking. The people behind the film had delusions of grandeur, and so much more ambition than ingenuity. And again, you realize how any positive aspects of making the film-- and it looks like they did have fun making it-- are ruined by the failed production that came out.

So hard to believe that this film came out nearly two decades ago, five years before Columbine made the topic of juvenile violence so taboo in teen movies. And it still remains impressive as an examination of girls' anger rather than boys, as a meditation on the possible yet inexplicable outcome of childhood torment.

• spoiler of ending ahead -

Two girls meet one afternoon and, after sharing stories of their childhood abuses and going on a cross-neighborhood prank spree, end up murdering an elderly woman in a cathartic rampage of unleashed aggression. Their lack of motive for the crime and their passionately non-sexual devotion to each other baffle the authorities who question them: for these effectively parentless children, the path from conversation to confession to stealing to games to jokes to murder is a logical progression, and the film leaves open the unsettling question if many young women are simply waiting for the right partner with whom to follow a similar epiphanic trajectory. In the end, after being imprisoned, one of the girls kills herself when she learns that the two of them will be separated, which becomes her twisted attempt to immortalize their uniquely understanding relationship. The film wisely concludes that the diffuse yet damaging oppressions of girls may lead to all manner of "fun" or furious outbursts and reactions.