roddekker

This 1984, Danish film, set in the year 1963 (at the height of Beatlemania), is an exceptional coming-of-age tale about 2 young friends named Bjorn and Erik.

Bjorn, a flamboyant, out-going drummer for a pseudo-Beatles group, and Erik, a reserved, conservative 17 year old with severe problems at home, are the best of mates who bravely take a stand against a world of controlling adults.

Played out against a standard pop-culture backdrop - "Twist & Shout" is a raw, uncompromising look at human emotions. Friendship, loyalty, obsession, first love, loss and betrayal are all examined at close range here.

I guarantee you that this "true-to-life" movie will leave no viewer unmoved.

If nothing else - The utter absurdity of this TV show's preposterous story-lines certainly proved to me that its director/writer/producer, Irwin Allen clearly had a very low opinion of the intelligence level of his audience. Yep. He sure did.

Had The Time Tunnel's story been, perhaps, set at least 20 years into the future (instead of the year 1967), then yes, this business about time travelling may have appeared to be more plausible.

Anyway - This dimwit, Sci-Fi TV series (that obviously took itself way too seriously for its own good) also lost itself some major points for not factoring in the possibility of "alternate realities" into its decidedly shaky "time-travel" equation.

I mean - If I'm seriously expected to believe that time travel is, in fact, a precision procedure - Then - With that in mind - I'd say that Irwin Allen can promptly take his show's premise and rightfully insert it straight up inside his rectum.

*Please note* - This version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is, in fact, a silent-era picture. It is now nearly 100 years old. If you choose to judge this picture by today's "in-your-face" standards of total over-the-top horror & gore, then, to be sure, you are going to be mighty disappointed with what you see here.

But if you have an appreciation for film history, and can value this film's story in its understated form, and can forgive it for all of its obvious flaws and faults, then, yes, this old relic will definitely be worth your while to watch.

From my point of view - I was actually quite impressed with the creepy, eerie and sinister atmosphere that prevailed in this production. Now, I would certainly never say that this was a great film. But, with that aside - I'll bet you that, upon its initial release, back in 1920, it must have scared the socks off of many of the viewers in the audience.

When it came to this Shakespearean story's cast, it was firstly Micheal Keaton, then Keanu Reeves, and then Kenneth Branagh (in that order) who I'd say stank to the 10th, 9th, and 8th power.

As this film's story goes - Young lovers Hero and Claudio are to be wed in one week. To pass the time this supremely bored, meddlesome couple conspire with Don Padro to set a "lover's trap" for Benedick, an arrogant, confirmed bachelor, and Beatrice, his favourite sparring partner.

In the meantime, the evil Don John conspires to break up Hero and Claudio's wedding by accusing Hero of infidelity.

Uh.... And wasn't this film called "Much Ado About Nothing"? Yep. It sure was. And, that's exactly what it was most certainly all about... NOTHING!!

Aside from the old "tarantula-in-the-bed" routine (hastily thrown in for good measure) and the pretty Miss Taro venomously spitting into Bond's face (applause. applause) after spending the previous hour gleefully rolling around in the sack with him - 1962's "Dr. No" contained absolutely no memorable scenes worth ranting and raving about here. (I'm not kidding!)

But, with that aside - This film certainly contained lots and lots of major let-downs! Such as - The bikini-clad Ursula Andress (aka. Honey Ryder) emerging out of the sea. I'm sorry, folks, but this was not... I repeat, "THIS WAS NOT" one of the supposedly sexiest moments ever recorded in the history of film. No, it wasn't.

In fact, I thought that this seashell-collecting bimbo, with her tiresome angry pout, put in one of the worst "Bond-girl" performances that I've ever seen.

And, how about mad scientist, Dr. No, himself? Boy, I'm tellin' ya - This pompous, effeminate, little snot (though a gracious host) made my skin crawl with his insipid presence and his rubber-gloved hands. To me, Dr. No's character was about as menacing as a wet dishrag with his drab and dreary little "evil" plot of absolute domination of the world. (Spare me!)

Instead of offering the viewer death-defying excitement, mixed generously with a stylish pizazz - Dr. No's humdrum story just sort of drifted along aimlessly from scene to scene without much drive or momentum..... Anyway - What more can I say?

I don't know about where you live - But in the 14-storey building that faces the building where I live in Vancouver, BC - I'd say that less than 20% of its tenants actually keep their curtains wide-opened all the time.

And, of course, this was not at all like it was in "Rear Window" where, literally, everyone was, pretty much, parading around in front of their windows (except for the bashful newlyweds) without any care, or concern, in the world that the guy across the courtyard was not only using binoculars (but a telescope, as well) to observe their private activities

Anyway - With that said - I thought that this 1954, Alfred Hitchcock thriller was fairly entertaining. Its story did build quite nicely to its adrenaline-charged climatic finale.

Here are 6 reasons why I gave San Andreas only a measly 2-star rating.

(1) - The over-the-top heroics were nauseating beyond belief.

(2) - The rescue team were all a bunch of cookie-cutter jocks.

(3) - The scenes of mass destruction quickly became tiresome.

(4) - The characters and their personal dramas all made my skin crawl.

(5) - That irksome catch-phrase "Oh, my god!" was uttered about 1000 times.

(6) - The waving in my face of the American flag was a truly cringe-worthy moment.

Well, there you have it. I think that gives you a pretty good idea of this film's overall disappointment-factor in a nutshell.

For starters - (If nothing else) - I thought that this 1938 film's Technicolour effects were nothing short of being absolutely astounding to behold. You could clearly tell that great attention to colour co-ordination was very much a major issue in this $2 million production.

Now almost 80 years old - The Goldwyn Follies definitely had its good points, as well as its not-so-good points. Featuring 7 Gershwin songs - This picture's story of comedy, music, and romance was obviously very much a product of its time. And, because of this it did make it difficult for this viewer not to scrutinize it just a little too critically.... (But I still give it a 6-star rating)

And, finally - When it came to watching famed ventriloquist, Edgar Bergen constantly moving his lips whenever it was his puppet/sidekick Charlie McCarthy's turn to speak - I thought that he was one of the most amateurish and unconvincing performers in his specialized profession that I have ever seen.

And, $150 million later....

Mad Max is yet another one of those painfully predictable "set-in-the-future" action films where (even though it's been given a "Restricted" rating) its brain-dead story completely caters to a juvenile mentality.

Within less than 30 minutes - Mad Max's over-the-top action sequences (of one vehicle crash after another) got so annoyingly repetitive that, in no time flat, it all became too tiresome for words.

This is definitely one of those pictures where you could easily watch a good part of it in "fast-forward" mode and you know that you're not gonna miss a damn thing of any importance.

And, yes - As I figured - This picture's story ended on a note that (unfortunately) had "sequel-to-follow" written all over it.... Yawn-city to the max!

You know, at first I thought that this 1947 picture was a heart-felt story about good, old George Bailey and how he was driven (through certain escalating circumstance) to the absolute brink of desperation on Xmas eve.

But, I now realize that this film's Christian-driven story-line was actually all about a calculating angel named Clarence who wanted to earn his wings. And so - With that agenda in mind - Clarence is sent down from heaven in order to assist George Bailey. And if he does so this will put him in favour with god and allow him to earn his wings.

So, in other words - Clarence helping George has nothing to do with any apparent kindness, charity, or good will towards man - No. It doesn't - It's all just a selfish, self-serving act on Clarence's part to earn those wings that he covets so much.

And so - With that in mind - I think that this covetous scenario reduces this manipulative, little tear-jerker to the slimy level of showing us all just how hypocritical and pretentious angels really are.

And, speaking about actor Humphrey Bogart - Up until now - I had always thought of him as being a cut-above-the-rest. But after reading what went on behind the scenes of this picture - I've now changed my mind about him, totally.

And, here's how the story goes - When Bogart found out how gutless his part as Linus Larrabee in this picture was he immediately turned into a big suck, sulking constantly and finding all sorts of ways to come into conflict with director, Billy Wilder, whom he blamed for this.

From hurling racist insults at Wilder, to refusing to take his direction - The huge rift that took place between these 2 on the set lasted for the entire duration of Sabrina's production.

This isn't the only reason why I gave this picture such a low rating - But it's one of the biggest reasons. And, I now think Bogart is a total ass. I can never watch another one of his pictures without being reminded of how childish he behaved here in this one. As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't deserve the admiration that so many of his fans give him.

To be sure - Elephants (though known to be quite gentle in nature) are mighty big animals, indeed, and they are certainly not the sort of beast that you would expect someone to keep as a pet.... But, kept as a pet (a glorified pet, that is) - Flora, the elephant, was by Missouri circus-owner, David Balding.

For the most part - "One Lucky Elephant" was a very informative and eye-opening documentary concerning the fate of a wild creature who was denied its natural environment and (though treated well) was kept captive and away from those of its own kind from the age of 2 to 18 years.

I think that this is the sort of documentary that would appeal, in one way, or another, to a fair-sized audience.... Believe me - This often-insightful presentation certainly contained some very intense moments, especially when it came to the startling footage of documented "elephant rage".

To say that "Babies", a documentary about (what else?) babies, could have been a whole lot better would truly be an understatement like you wouldn't believe.

Covering the very first year in the development of 4 babies born and living in different cultures from around the world (Africa, Mongolia, Japan, USA) - "Babies" was a pretty mundane presentation that lost this viewer's undivided attention within its first 15 minutes.

Repetitive and boring (for the most part) - The one thing that quickly raised my concern in this presentation was the bad treatment that each of these apparently cute and adorable rugrats inflicted on the family cat in their home and that no one stepped in to calmly teach these gurgling small-fry to do otherwise.

Favourite movie-quote - "Arf! Arf! Arf!...."

Frankenweenie is an "electrifying" tale of a boy and his dog. It tells the gruesome, little story of young Victor Frankenstein who conducts a daring and amazing scientific experiment in hopes of bringing his beloved dog, Sparky, back to life.

With the successful re-animation of Sparky, Victor soon finds that he (as well as many others) must now face some unforeseen and monstrous consequences.

All-in-all, Frankenweenie certainly had its fair share of flaws, but, just the same, I really hadn't expected to enjoy this film as much as I did.

Appropriately filmed in b&w - Thank goodness that this picture didn't contain any musical numbers.

What I really applaud about Highlander is that amongst all of the cheesy sword-fighting and flashy pyrotechnics, it didn't take itself too seriously and I guess that's what gave this film its wacky charm.

I was also mighty impressed with the obvious care that was taken with the scenes that were shot in the beautiful countryside and along the coastal mountain regions of grand, old Scotland.

The one and only actor who impressed me in Highlander was Clancy Brown who played (with great relish and finesse) the viciously nasty and savagely vengeful Kurgan. Yep. I certainly got my money's worth when Brown's character showed up on screen. (Ha! What a hoot he was!)

All-in-all - This pre-CGI/Fantasy/Action picture from 1986 was fairly satisfying when it came to the realm of entertainment. And, I honestly thought that director Russell Mulcahy clearly showed a lot of flair and style in his overall execution of Highlander's production.

*Trivia note* - Believe it, or not - There have now been 5 Highlander movies, 2 television series, an animated series, an animated movie, an animated flash-movie series, 10 original novels,19 comic book issues, and various licensed merchandise.

Released in 1980 - Dressed To Kill (directed by Brian De Palma) is a stylishly gruesome horror story about sexual frustration, madness, and the insatiable blood-thirst of a pug-ugly, homicidal transvestite.

So, I ask you - How does one intelligently discuss the rightful merits of this highly trendy horror/thriller without first seriously comparing it to Alfred Hitchcock's classic, slasher-flick - Psycho? It can't be done. The parallel in directorial style and technique between these 2 films is just too blatantly obvious.

To say that director De Palma "borrowed" like a literal psycho-maniac from Hitchcock for this picture would surely be an understatement.

Now, I'm not saying that this was necessarily a bad thing..... It's just that when it comes to the art of blatant borrowing, this film in question is so easily unmasked as being nothing more than a pale imitation. And that inevitably destroys any potential originality that it might have had to offer on its own merits, thus leaving it entirely exposed, like an opened target, to endless criticism, both negative and comparative.

The Blob was everything that a 1950s Teen/Horror flick should be. It was fun, goofy, contained awful dialog, and, yes, it was even entertaining, in its own cheesy way.

A meteorite (from who the hell knows where?) containing a slimy blob of cherry-colored jelly lands just outside the town of Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. This jelly-fied substance soon attaches itself to an old man's hand.

Before long it completely engulfs the old man (clothes, and all). Then the same fate meets a nurse. And then it's the doctor's turn. And so on, and so forth - Until this once small creature (which acid can't harm) has grown in mass to a truly monstrous size - A size that nicely matches its equally monstrous appetite.

Soon (regardless of its size), the blob is squeezing its way through small openings and (with the rapid speed of a true parasite) devouring anything and anyone who dares to stand in its path.

In conclusion - One can only wonder what sort of a world the blob came from. I mean, when in its normal habitat, what could it have possibly fed on?

This very unique creature was not like any other before it in the history of cinema. It neither had a skeletal structure, nor internal organs, nor a face, nor even a body, for that matter - Yet somehow the damn thing thought, breathed, and existed, and had a ferocious appetite, as well.

All-in-all - I enjoyed The Blob.

Though I haven't yet seen 1998's "Ringu" (from Japan) - I certainly thought that 2002's "The Ring" (which was its American remake) was (as far as modern-day ghost stories go) a satisfyingly eerie tale of the supernatural. This film actually produced some very real and powerful chills without having to resort to grinding excessive, bloody gore into my face.

Featuring plenty of ghostly images to frighten the viewer, royally - Along with a mellow flow of hypnotically haunting music (composed by Hans Zimmer) to set the mood - "The Ring" certainly didn't let me down at all as its story went deep into an investigation into the deaths of those who had viewed a mysterious video tape.

Impressively directed by Gore Verbinski - There was definitely no question in my mind that this talented movie-maker understood the genre of film that he was working with, completely.

For me, "The Ring" was a real "gem-of-a-fright-flick" whose spooky images and scary story-line actually stayed with me long after the whole horror-show was over.

In 10 years time (2026) the silent-era, Sci-Fi, classic, Metropolis will be reaching 100 years - And by sheer coincidence the year 2026 is also the same date in which this film's story is set.

If nothing else - I think that it's interesting to see (through the eyes of the film Metropolis) how (100 years into the future) man's world was perceived to be.

Over the last 15 years - I have watched this picture 3 times - And I do have to agree with others that without its incredible set designs and the presence of one of the most fantastic robots imaginable, Metropolis would, pretty much, be a very ordinary and, yes, humdrum production.

But, with that said - From a purely historical point of view - I do recommend this film to one, and all.

If you are looking for a first-rate history documentary that not only features plenty of excellent archival footage, but is also one of the most incisive and informative (as it clearly retells the true story of Nazi-rule in war-torn Germany), then, believe me, this is definitely the one presentation to see.

Impressively directed by Laurence Rees - This 6-episode program is a very serious "Warning From History" - Indeed - Cautioning us all that if a horrific event like the "Holocaust" did happen once, then, to be sure, it could, most certainly, happen again.

And, of course - As we all know - The chief orchestrator behind all of the endless oppression and atrocity that prevailed throughout WW2 was the biggest and vilest villain of them all - Adolf Hitler, an utterly despicable, low-life worm whose sole objective was to rule the world "his way".

Set in California during The Great Depression of the 1930's - "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" is all about the wretchedness, and all the utter hopelessness of an era of impoverishment like none other in American history.

Here the viewer is witness to every despairing detail of destitution. All so graphically depicted. All so clearly unfolded through the sad experiences of a pitiful collection of marathon dancers, each one at the utter brink of desperation.

This is a dance marathon to beat all other dance marathons. To date it has been running now, non-stop, for 2 months, solid. It's guaranteed to be a real record-breaker.

And, the one, final couple that remains on their feet to the bitter end, out-dancing all others, will be crowned the winners, receiving as their hard-earned reward a grand prize of $1,500. Not much money by today's standards, but, for the many who were absolutely poverty-stricken during The Depression, it represented a literal fortune.

Yep. That's what "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" is all about.

And, speaking about Arnold Schwarzenegger (who's now 70 years old) (and don't he look it?) - Like, hasn't this tired, rickety, old relic (whose net worth is estimated at being $400 million) had enough of the celebrity limelight, yet!!?? Hasn't he!!??

And when it came to his role here in Terminator Genisys as The Guardian (aka. "Pops") - Man, I can't begin to tell you what a total embarrassment he was in his part. He sure looked like a doddering, old fool to me (kicking ass one more time) (Spare me!), and uttering some of the most stupid and inane lines imaginable.

And when he did his hideous "shit-grin" smile (for about the 4th time) - I can't begin to tell you how much this old buffoon made my skin crawl, big-time!

Yep. After having to tolerate the utter nonsense in this Sci-Fi, time-travel dud - To me, Schwarzenegger is utterly despicable.

For Hollywood (in its heyday) - The 1950's certainly began quite ominously with Billy Wilder's straight-faced freak-show known otherwise as "Sunset Boulevard". Without a doubt - This picture is, indeed, an oddity in itself, being a story-of-the-grotesque that is told by, none other than, a corpse.

Yes. Perhaps the most revealing movie that Hollywood ever made about its own decline - "Sunset Boulevard" was, very much, all about the movie industry's rise to great power, its fabricated imagery, as well as its total worship of youth and its own dark past.

And, of course - Irony of ironies - Only director Billy Wilder could imagine Tinseltown as a place where the dead go on speaking - Talking about their lives as if nothing had changed.

As I understand it - (According to those elite, high'n'mighty "snobs-of-cinema") - Deliverance ranks right up there as being a true treasure of American film-making from the early 1970's.

And, if one does dare to speak out disrespectfully of this much-lauded cinematic treasure they are automatically labelled by those "snobs" as being an oaf and a despicable heathen for doing so.

With all of the macho-man "ball-scratching" that takes place in this ultimate "buddy" picture (especially from the likes of Burt Reynolds) - I guess that I can (sort of) understand why this film is so highly praised and endlessly revered (even to this very day, nearly 50 years later).

But, if you ask me - Deliverance has got to be yet another one of those utterly inferior, puzzling, and over-rated pictures that is repeatedly defended to the death by those "self-righteous snobs" who still choose to view it through the guise of rose-coloured glasses.

Yep. If ever there was a particular motion picture that has made me lose total respect and admiration for its highly-regarded director - That motion picture would have to be, none other than - Stanley Kubrick's detestable "Lolita".

Had this 1962 film presented the Lolita character in a more favorable light, and not as a despicable, snot-nosed, demanding, 14-year-old slut, then, yes, I would have definitely reconsidered my initial opinion of film-maker, Kubrick.

But here I found myself absolutely loathing the young (but not naive) Lolita about 10x more than I did the men who were clambering to seduce this white-trash tart.

In other words - Lolita certainly deserved everything that she got from these lusting old farts.

And, come to think of it - I seriously believe that that's exactly the point that Kubrick was trying to get across here in Lolita's sordid, little story.

He was clearly telling all the horny males in his audience that pedophilia was OK in his eyes, especially if the "under-aged-one" was, in fact, a total bitch (as was the case here).