steve-974-698135

For whatever reason, I saw the title and gave it a try. It's about a loser kid who is unhappy with his easy middle-class life. So he turns to crime in stupid ways. Nothing much happens, and the movie stretches out that nothing until it almost breaks.

I watched up until the 22-year-old star said he was 14. I put up with the cheesey diaglogue. I put up with the mom defending her do-nothing son as if he was misunderstood. I put up with his two friends teaching him how to be a bad guy even though he was the one with the violent record.

But the kid just ain't 14. What is this, 90210?

This movie rocks. Brian Keith and Charleston Heston doing what they do best. Ford, Wayne, and Bond never had this much fun doing a movie.

Keith and Heston play two grizzled old farts who grumble all the time and shake off injuries in much the Wayne style. They fight tons of Indians.

Heston hooks up with this young woman who becomes central to the story. She doesn't want to go back to her tribe, but the fighting will continue until she does. The last thing this woman is is weak. She kicks serious butt. None of this fake look-at-my-heinie-as-I-gyrate-Lucy-Liu fighting, but real fighting. She beats up men, gets knocked out, gets trampled by a horse, but there is no stopping her.

Excellent action scenes. Eastwood and Wayne couldn't have done better. Redford certainly did much worse in his weak, pathetic caricature of the infamous Liver Eater Jeremiah Johnson. The real Johnson wouldn't have cried all the way like Redford did. He would have kicked butt like Heston and Keith.

The movie pits man against man, man against animal, and occasionally woman against man. In all fight scenes, no one backs down. All fight with honor, with the exception of one lone Frenchman.

Despite my love of good action scenes, my favorite parts of this movie are the wisecracks, especially Keith. He has a lot of them.

If I ever get to be a trapper in 1860 Wyoming, I hope that I can find these guys.

And if I get real lucky, maybe Cheston's babe has a sister.

Another movie in which the American fighting man is portrayed as weak, stupid, untrained, and rebellious.

The Captain won't help a family get out of harm's way, but has no trouble assaulting a radar tower. Stupid. In one case, take ten seconds and point to the avenue of escape. In the other, avoid the tower; it's not the mission.

A well-manned squad has a sniper and a translator, but not a radioman or a machine gunner. What?

Bullets slice easily through all helmets except one. They wanted the irony of the guy pulling off his helmet and then getting the head shot.

The Star Trek philosophy of the Captain being challenged every step by his subordinates. Might be the way it works in space. Didn't happen in WWII. More people die when you "put it to a vote."

Snipers die when they fire continuously. Not their job. The German ate it because he tried to take everybody out; the American did the same.

A sniper's basic job in battle is to make the enemy keep low and go slow. He takes out the head (officers and radiomen), the muscle (mostly machine gunners, bazookas, and BARs, or the morale (medics). If the bad guys take out your chain of command, take away your strength, or take away any hope of surviving a wound, you tend not to fight as well.

If your man throws a hissy fit and wants to desert, you help him. Not gonna happen. Even if you are a pacifist piece of crap like the Captain, you have to keep your unit cohesive.

Tanks enter a hot zone in a city without firing a shot. Stupid. Tanks, like planes, provide massive firepower but also huge targets. The Queen of Battle takes the cities. Tanks avoid them and fire at them from a distance. Tank busters wouldn't have been used in this situation. They probably would have taken out the very bridge that both sides wanted to own, but neither side wanted to destroy.

You let the rookie hang back and cry. No. If you don't want to fight with the rest of us, you can do your part by attracting bullets.

The way to infiltrate the enemy lines is to crowd together, joke, and sing while you walk along through the pretty fields. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Spread out; keep quiet; learn how to use the 1,000 yard stare.

A Captain loses 96 men and rationalizes that he saved 10 times that amount. Not in our Army. I waited for him to say 104. That would have been believable, but I guess this Captain was leading a battalion, not a company. And somehow, he ends up leading not a battalion, not a company, not a platoon, but a mere squad. Most likely, a buck sarge or a corporal would have led that squad.

Non-combat pencil jockeys call the shots as the Normandy Invasion is going on. Uh, no.

If you have a prisoner, you let him go while you dig graves. No, to letting him go. No, to digging graves during battle. You take care of the living first; and of the living, you take care of your own men first.

Although communication was atrocious, all platoons had a radioman, and some squads did. The proper place for a radioman is two feet to the rear of the Captain at all times.

The horrid portrayal of the American fighting man goes on and on. They weren't wimps. Yes, everyone was scared silly, but they didn't challenge every fricking order. If you are part of the 10% of the Army known as line soldiers, the chances are good that you are not coming back. You know that going in.

War is terrible. You don't want to experience it. But if you have to, try to be like the sarge. Don't be stupid like the sniper, cowardly like the translator, "conflicted" like Hanks, treasonous like what's his name, etc.

And Private Ryan himself. At that cemetery, he should have been thinking about all the men he killed, not whether he lived up to the Captain's standards. He killed the Captain and most of his men. A fitting end would have Ryan eating a bullet.

The Screaming Eagles (Puking Chickens) and the Rangers were highly trained. They weren't wimps. They didn't have anybody in their units who was untrained in rifle fire. They knew that their job was to do the heaviest fighting and take the bloodiest losses. Every one of them knew how to fire, how to bandage a wound, how to use a radio, bazooka, Garand, BAR, how to lead. When one went down, another would take his place. Battlefield promotions were never more prevalent than in those units.

Those men volunteered to be in those units. They might have been drafted, but they chose to join the roughest and most courageous outfits that we had.

I salute our fighting men. Although I was a ground pounder, my contribution to American freedom was relatively small and insignificant. I only hope that I could have acted like one of the few valiant soldiers portrayed here.

And as to the movie itself: Shameful. Utterly shameful.

Susan Sarandon, the pure garbage that she is, portrays a woman who is pure garbage. Not much of a stretch there.

Boyle, another bleeding heart, has the role of evil Right-Wing avenger.

Boyle learns that a man has accidentally killed the piece-of-crap hippy who was slowly killing the man's piece-of-crap daughter (Sarandon) with drugs. The movie tells us that it is wrong to interfere with your daughter's slide into drug addiction, alcoholism and promiscuity. Hey, they have their rights, man.

Sarandon takes her clothes off a lot because hey, that's good acting.

Boyle hates everybody because hey, that's an honest portrayal of what was once called the Silent Majority.

Eventually Boyle abandons everything he believes in. Despite his intense hate, all of a sudden, hey, them hippies look good.

Then he goes wild and kills everybody in sight.

Speaking as a former hippy, I remember that fathers tended to get upset when their daughters turned into drug-addled whores. I seem to remember that even the liberal pinko Dads didn't like their daughters being used as catatonic semen receptacles, the type of role, by the way, that Sarandon was born to play.

Boyle, the great actor albeit liberal freak that he is, expressed great displeasure that audiences sided with his character. Apparently, it is wrong to get robbed and try to retrieve your wallet. Apparently, it is wrong to protect your daughter.

Just like Easy Rider, every hippy in this movie is a complete waste.

And just like in Easy Rider, the best scene is at the end where the hippies die.

Joe gets 9 stars because lots and lots of hippies die.

It loses a star because some of them survive.

For all those who feel that this movie is an honest portrayal of anything, let this hippy give you the old three-fingered peace sign.

And now it's time to tune in, turn on, and drop out.

Groovy, baby.

P.S. The ORIGINAL spelling was "hippy." Blame the establishment for the nonsensical variation, "hippie."

This kid is a loser, and he buys a gift for the cool girl, but the cool boys pick on him, and then he falls through the ice and is about to drown, but unluckily, he wishes himself into the library and the movie continues.

So everybody thinks the loser kid is dead, and then he asks the cool girl to go to Europe with him, and the cool girl forgets that he is dead; so she goes with him.

And then Samuel L kills a guy who is a jumper, and then Samuel L says how come you're stealing money, but the kid gets away and the movie continues.

And then there is a love story for a while. But nobody really gets any.

And then the kid's mom says I should kill you, but I love you, so you get a head start.

And then Samuel gets mad over and over. People get beat up. And then for no apparent reason, the movie ends.

The "special effects" that people talk about are apparently what post-teenagers call scenery. First they are at this cool place, then they are at that one. Nice scenery, but it's just scenery.

Some people have speculated that the "special effects" are really the way that they jump from one place to another. A lot of times, they jump instantly. Sometimes, they seem, not to jump, but rather to move fast from one location to another. They do this going down halls. Once they had a guy smash through a wall. Maybe they were jumpers who were also sprinters.

Samuel L was mad all through the movie. My opinion is that he could not keep that wig in place. It was sliding down his head at times.

I think the producers were told to put these young chuckleheads in a movie that matched their abilities, and they certainly did that.

And I think Samuel L needed a quick payday.

This movie gets two stars. One star is because it had Samuel L. The second star is for the scenery. And once again, scenery is not the same as special effects.

This old guy and his wife are deeply in love. Then she's not. Old guy puts up with it until she files for divorce. Then he gets a younger woman. Then his wife says come back, so he does. But she treats him like crap, and he ditches her for the young stuff. Young stuff doesn't mind that he dumped her for the snotty wife, and she takes him back. The end.

Great movie, but it's not a "love story." It's the tale of a strong man who faced a failing marriage.

Some have questioned why Maria Ouspenskaya got an Oscar nomination over Mary Astor. Ms. Ouspenskaya's role is critical. Wifey needs a reason to run back to hubby. Ms. Ouspenskaya's role provides that reason.

But why no nomination for Astor? Because her role is not needed. This movie is about the growth and change of Huston. With or without Astor, Huston would have gotten off that boat.

Some have questioned why Astor and Huston didn't get more screen time to develop their romance. Again, that is because this is not a love story. This is about the growth of Doddsworth. He stayed loyal to his wife up to the very end, and when the end came, that's when he started messing with Astor's character.

I like Astor, but Doddsworth could have taken up fishing, and the movie would have been the same.

I think Sinclair Lewis was being tricky. Wifey leaves hubby. Wifey says come back. Hubby drops new love and runs back. Now new love stays true. Hubby runs back to new love. Now that he is back, will their new relationship last any longer than when hubby ran back to wifey just a few scenes back? Personally, if I was a woman, I would not welcome back a man who had just dumped me to run back to his wife and then dumped his wife to run back to me. If this is a love story, it is part of the women-with-low-self-esteem genre.

Rarely is a movie so well written and well acted. Everyone associated with the film was outstanding, but Huston stands high above everyone else.

Small criticisms: 1, Doddsworth could have knocked a few guys down. 2, Doddsworth could have improved wifey's disposition with a grapefruit and a few words of advice from Cagney. 3, Why does Astor constantly look like somebody ran over her kitty?

I give this movie a strong 10 out of 10 stars.

Three stars because this short is about the only time you will ever see a movie about a city slicker who wanders upon a friendly countrified farmer with an armed and mentally challenged son without it turning into a horror flick.

Whisperin Bill was written by a guy, Irving Bacheller, who did tons for American literature, but his writings, and this poem, are a very small part of his legacy.

Bacheller had a long, varied and distinguished career. Yes, he wrote some books that were popular at the time, but his body of work can only be described nowadays as "obscure." He comes to light every couple of years when a college student will say "Hey, who is the guy this building is named after? However, the list of foreign authors he introduced to America was impressive. Also, he was the champion of the struggling Stephen Crane. Bacheller was able to do that because he started the first newspaper syndicate.

He did not write Whisperin Bill during the Civil War. He was two when the war started and seven when it ended. Most likely, he penned the poem during or after his time as a war correspondent in France during World War I.

Will Rogers could be folksy and talk like us common folk. That's because he was. Bacheller was never considered "folksy." His poem is a clumsy attempt to talk like us poor uneducated souls.

Well, shut my mouth and call me taterhead, but I ain't buying it.

Forget this short and forget the poem that inspired it. If Bacheller is to be remembered, it should be for the remarkable way he transformed American media.

Sho nuf.

If Linda Hamilton and Tommy Lee had an emotional outburst in a forest, would it make a noise? Tommy Lee and his wooden acting is wonderful. I feel the same way about Clint Eastwood. Heck, those two could switch acting roles and nobody would know the difference.

Linda Hamilton is another story. Usually a woman needs acting skills or some kind of sex appeal to make it in Hollywood. Hamilton proves the exception. Whether happy, sad, angry, or upset, she sticks with the tight lipped grimace of a hemorrhoid sufferer.

Tommy Lee was 40, and had already perfected his acting style of using either a conversational and controlled voice or a slightly louder controlled voice. If he ever plays a robot, they won't have to coach him very much.

The plot is pretty non-existent, even for a Tommy Lee movie. The best thief in the world is running away with his loot and comes upon the best car in the world. At the same time, he meets the best auto thief in the world. Tommy, in his wisdom as the best thief in the world, believes that the best place to stash his loot is in a car that is constantly being worked on by a team of engineers. Luckily, the best thief in the world is able to do this because the best car in the world is being hauled around in a crappy little trailer with a tarp. Tommy Lee even gets caught doing it, but they just let him go because, hey, he was just looking.

They did throw in some very old actors: Jaeckel, Vaughn, Wynn, Cassavettes. Tommy Lee at 40 was the youngest by far. Hamilton was only 30, and must have had a Daddy complex.

I love Tommy Lee when he is directed the same way you direct Eastwood and Lee van Cleef. Have them deliver fewer lines than anybody else, but have them dominate with their controlled, emotionless delivery. That didn't happen here. They didn't capitalize on Tommy Lee's one dimensionality to good advantage.

I believe the director was trying to emphasize Tommy Lee's acting chops by having him appear in scenes with Bubba Smith. Bubba is a nice guy in real life, but he rarely contributes more to a scene than what could be provided by, say, a wall or coffee maker. Bubba appears almost exclusively in movies in which something heavy has to be picked up.

Overall, the best scenes are those that involve Tommy Lee and none of the other principal actors. In those scenes, Tommy Lee looks like the future Tommy Lee.

The movie loses points with the love scene, although it does keep your interest for much the same reason as why people slow down at auto accidents with burned corpses and severed heads. Ya just gotta look, even though you know the images will haunt you.

See this movie if you want to see Tommy Lee have a good scene now and then.

See this movie if you think an action movie should be full of pudgy old men.

See this movie if you think women shouldn't be so emotional.

See this movie if you think big-time industrial bad guys should only pack one gun for three guys.

My crazy Uncle Ned would pick up a hammer now and then and bang himself in the head over and over. When asked why, he said because it felt so good when he stopped.

Uncle Ned watches this movie.

Based on real events, yes. Based on the actual facts of those real events, no.

This movie, according to the principals, was the darling of the film festival circuit for almost three weeks. The term "film festival," again according to the principals, is any event in which four or more people watch a movie.

The movie takes the odd stance of championing freedom of speech and suppression of speech -- both under the guise of the First Amendment. Apparently, if you are "in the right," you should be able to say whatever you want, but if you are "in the wrong," anything you say is oppressive and illegal. In this movie, one group is definitely pegged as being "in the right."

Personally, I like the rules in America that say nobody has to shut up. Everybody gets to speak their mind. Even those with ugly, revolting points of view get to say what they want. That's America.

People are allowed to say "Don't shop at XXXXX. They do things we don't like. Go ask Wal-Mart, Sony, Disney, Burger King, etc. All of them have had campaigns against them.

And people are allowed to sell anything legal despite protests. Again, go ask Wal-Mart, Sony, Disney, etc.

And no crime has been committed by these protests even if one party feels "forced" to withdraw a product. They can still sell it. It's their choice.

Disney is a perfect example. They have top movies and cartoons that will never be seen again because of protests over 50 years ago. It's their choice. No law is being broken because of the protests.

In America, people are allowed to say, Don't shop at XXX, their commercials are xxx. People are allowed to say, Don't shop at XXX, they made fun of xxx. People are allowed to say, Don't shop at XXX, they sell a T-shirt with a slogan that offends us.

The oil companies, Big Tobacco, automakers, chain stores, restaurants, Wall Street -- all have endured fanatical protests of a much higher and more strident nature. Are they victims also?

The actual facts would have made an accurate, but boring, portrayal of the down-and-dirty dealings of activists versus business. Accurate and boring, yes, but quite a bit better than horribly slanted and boring.

The saving grace of this movie, unlike other doggie doo, is that you won't run across it unless you actively search for it. It has never risen to "discount bin" status.

If you like Billy Jack, this is for you. Over 2 hours of a leading actress that can't act, a leading man who stands still without expression, and an inane group of men who are supposed to be dangerous because they are slightly bizarre. Sprinkle in ten minutes of Billy kicking big donkey, and you have the formula.

Tom Laughlin knew a winner when he saw one and would use the main elements of this film in all of his future Billy Jack movies. In later films, his real-life wife would take over the role of the leading actress that can't act.

This is a very low-budget movie. Future Billy Jack against the world movies had a couple more bucks. But true to form, as in all Billy Jack movies, there is no competent acting anywhere.

Personally, none of this stuff turns me off of Billy Jack movies. In one movie, I see it for the gas station scene. In another, I want to see Billy put his right foot up against the guy's left ear. In a third, I want to see him shoot it out.

For an anti-war pinko, Laughlin sure knows how to create some nice fight scenes. If the man would have moved a few more times per pic, he would have been a major star. But his style is to stand around for most of the movie with a deadpan expression, and then finally kick some butt.

The Billy Jack movies are a lot like chitlins, limburger cheese, or kim chee. If you like that stuff, you don't mind the smell.

This one stinks to high heaven.

But it's a Billy Jack stink.

Two former powerhouses of football meet on the field 30 years after their heyday. Both teams, while generally inept, have somehow managed to compile perfect records against the other inept teams in their generally inept conference.

One team plays well. The other stumbles. At the end, the inept team that was winning gives up a buttload of points to the inept team that was losing. This results in a tie.

Almost all points are scored because of -- because of -- well, because of inept mistakes.

A Harvard fan decides to create an inept film about this inept game and gives it the inept title Harvard Beats Yale.

Outside of graduation day at the Hollywood division of the Betty Ford Clinic, never have so many minor talents had so much praise heaped on them simply for waking up and breathing.

Watch this film if you like to hear people say, We tried hard; they tried hard; it broke my heart.

Stay away if you like football, people who don't whine, or quality.

This film gets two stars: One star because lots of eggheads got beat up that day; and one star because the voices in my head go quiet when I'm extremely bored.

Here is yet another movie without a plot, a script, or acting, that somehow has achieved "cult status." Don't get me wrong. I love James Taylor (Note the Summary Title). I love car movies. I love Warren Oates and Harry Dean.

But this movie is a hot, steaming pile of dog doo.

Two drifters have a car and occasionally race it. Other than that, the most notable thing about the movie is that in every conversation at least one person is sullenly staring off into space. That person is Taylor if he is in the scene. But it can also be the girl or the mechanic.

Oates is a wonder. He keeps you interested with his wild stories of how he got his car and where he is going. But he gets little help from the rest of the cast.

Harry Dean probably showed up drunk on the wrong set one day, and they decided to write him in. His very small part seems out of place even in such a low-rent road movie. Shameful abuse of a talented lush.

I don't ask much from car road movies. I love Vanishing Point. I'll watch Opie wreck cars. I fell in love with Crazy Mary. I love Roadside Prophets. But this movie has BO Plenty.

When I originally saw the movie, I thought something had gone wrong at the ending. And I cheered. But it became clear that, no, nothing was wrong. This was the director's idea of how to end a movie. And so I turned my cheer into a Bronx cheer.

See this movie if you love James Taylor, but not his music. See this movie if you want to see Harry Dean play yet another homosexual hitchhiker. See this movie if your idea of an ending is something similar to "and then I woke up."

Otherwise steer clear of this turkey, and spend your time on much more compelling movies such as "The Three Stooges Go West" or "Everybody Poops."

There is this blonde who meets a man and, oh, mama, falls in love and gets engaged immediately. Uh-oh. The poor poor blonds forgot that she was already engaged. Then the blonds meets another guy and gets engaged for a third time. She forgot again!!! It is so silly, and we laugh and laugh.

The poor guys get together and commiserate with her predicament. They are very helpful. They want her to take her time. They just want what is best for her.

No one is offended by her. She is not a slut. She just somehow found herself cheating on three men at once. No one questions her ethics. The men think she is wonderful.

Finally, she chooses one of the men, and then almost immediately double-crosses the poor sap. The final song triumphantly proclaims that the blonde slut has finally found true love.

The movie ends with her speeding away on a boat with the last man she kissed. He is smiling and seems very happy. Perhaps it is because he knows that she won't be able to cheat on him until they hit land.

And maybe, just maybe, he is smiling because he is going to make sure she never gets to land.

I watched 5 minutes and found way too many historical inaccuracies. Not a single man is dressed like a Texas Ranger. The Captain of the Rangers threatens to track down a departing Ranger because he is stealing Ranger clothes, a Ranger badge, Ranger boots, a Ranger horse. To this day, the Rangers pay for their own clothes. In the old days, most Rangers refused to wear a badge because it was thought of as a target for the bad guys. Horses were not provided to any Ranger -- officer or enlisted. Many, if not most, Rangers did not wear the traditional cowboy hats. The Texas sun is too strong. Sombreros were very popular. Rangers were always on their horses. They did not wear their guns low like a gunslinger. That would be stupid. They wore them high so that they could get to them easier while mounted.

You could make 30 or 40 good movies about the Rangers and their dealings with outlaws like Bass and Hardin. They could make a darn good comedy out of the One riot/One Ranger Dallas prizefight. They could make a great movie about Judge Roy and Langtry. Judge Roy Bean is the guy who eventually put on that prizefight, even though the Rangers did everything they could to stop it. They could have made a great movie about the Ranger who tracked down Bonnie and Clyde.

They could have made a monumental movie. But instead they focus on crap. They present crap. They look like crap. They dress like crap. They speak like crap. No one in Texas, past or present, speaks like the goobers in this movie.

In their entire history, the Rangers lost just one important battle. Besides that battle (Salinero Revolt), this movie is the blackest mark on Ranger history.