Film Dog

Possibly one of the ten-worst movies ever made, 'Boob Tube' was a drive- in staple during the mid-70's. Seeing it was a rite of passage for horny guys in their coming-of-age years. Has a heavy nostalgia factor.

The acting is purposely over the top in a vain attempt at being hilariously funny. My score: three smiles, two chuckles. Perhaps part of the problem is that the jokes, mostly sex-related double entendres,could have been written by a junior high student. Or maybe they were. Who knows?

The story line, if you want to call it that, revolves around, well, sex and boobs. No surprise there. It is presented in a bunch of loosely related short segments ala 'Kentucky Fried Movie'. Recommended to lovers of drive-in drivel or late baby boomers wanting to re-live their ribald past.

When I was in Navy Hosp Corps School back in Feb. 1977 I took the train to Chicago. I was looking for something to do and happened to stumble upon a seedy downtown theater showing this film in 3D. Wasn't much else to do, so in I went. They passed out those stupid red lens/green lens glasses, and presto! 3D it was!! The ultimate in camp! I absolutely loved it. I stumbled upon this film at a yard sale this past summer, and still loved it in 2d. The acting is hit-and-miss, the plot is thin, but it more than makes up for it in atmosphere and gore. The perfect camp formula, in my opinion. Although Andy Warhol's name appears nowhere in the credits except 'producer' and the title, my hat's off to him. Without his name this little gem would have remained buried somewhere in European film vaults. Thanks, Andy!

First of all, let me say this: whether or not a movie is "good" or "bad" is not my primary concern. It may influence how I rate a particular film, but in the end, all I really care about is how much I ENJOYED a movie. Pure and simple. 'Plan 9' is one of the worst films ever made, but it's an incredibly fun movie to watch. I recommend it to anyone who likes camp, who likes to laugh at bad movies, who would like to see the movie that received the Golden Turkey Award for "The Worst Film of All Time".

And it probably is. The acting is the absolute pits. By everyone. Check out Tor's performance. He is reputed to be one of the worst actors to ever grace the screen. Bela Lugosi died in the middle of filming and was replaced by his dentist, who was about 6" taller. Hell, who's gonna notice, anyway? But he was also considerably younger the Lugosi, and looked nothing like him, so he played every scene with his cape over his face! They could've dragged anyone off the street and gotten the same affect.

They sets are so cheesey it hard to believe. Shower curtains are used to help simulate the cockpit of a space ship. Hub caps impersonate flying saucers.

If you want to see the definitive "so bad it's good" film, by all means pick it up.

OK, not the best all-time film, but one thing it does is demonstrate the versatility and talent of Brendan Frazer. He plays several personalities, and does them all convincingly. He's got my vote as one of the best talents in film today. Nuff said.

The title is very misleading. For a "how to" movie, this one just doesn't cut it. The plot revolves around circumstances and methods that are simply too specific. In the movie, Jack Lemmon's character lives in a townhouse with a new high rise going up next door, a situation which is central to the plot and, therefore, his method. Not many people live in that sort of neighborhood. He didn't poison her, shoot her, run her over with his car, or take out a contract on her. I don't want to be a spoiler, so I can't reveal how he did it. Suffice to say it was not a method anyone else could put to use. Very disappointing. To make matters worse, he didn't really get away with it. Anyone can murder their wife and get caught. The trick is not to get caught.

If one is looking for a practical method to do away with one's female spouse, he would do better to read the local paper, where on almost any given day there is a story of a local boy doing the dirty deed. Just figure out where he went wrong and go from there.

Father Andrew (holding a beer): Did you know that monks invented alcohol?

Frankie: Everyone knows that!

Actually, alcoholic beverages have been around hundreds and hundreds of years B.C. The Egyptians? Try at least the Babylonians. It was most likely discovered when barley was left out in a vessel, got wet, then spontaneously mashed and fermented. Some believe the Babylonians used up to half their barley on beer. But now, thanks to this stupid movie, every high school and college kid who sees it is going to go around saying, "Dude! Did you know monks invented alcohol? No really. I learned that in a movie."

OK, what else about this film? Howzabout all style and very little substance? Some people commented it's like watching a music video. I agree.

I also wondered how a hairdresser could afford that swell city apartment. Most hairdressers I know, at least the single ones, live in trailer parks or not much better.

OK, maybe I'm getting a little too hyper-critical, but that beer thing really set me off. And by the way, some of the best beer in the world really is made my monks, particularly by those in Belgian monasteries. Try a Chimay some time. Brewed since 1664. Nothing quite like it.

Wow! Having graduated from high school in '71 I can identify with this show and testify that the parody is pretty much right on. I swear I knew every one of these characters when I was in my teens and early 20's. And characters they are. Each one has a completely unique personality, yet they are all true to life.

Another thing I like about this show is that all the humor does not revolve around sexual inuendo, as almost every other show on TV does nowadays. I have nothing against sexual inuendo, but geez! When EVERY show revolves around the same theme, when every show has the same punchlines over and over it really gets old. What we have here is a little originality, and it is soooo refreshing.

And the pot-smoking? Hey, how could you do a show about the '70s without it? I'll bet 90% of the people I knew back then got high. There are worse things to glorify. Like all the violence on TV, for instance. With all the drugs, long hair, protests, and hippies, the '70s were STILL a much better era to live in. Why? Much less violence, much more idealism. Unless you count Vietnam, but hey; that was government-sponsored violence, and a government-sponsored reality check, so who's to argue?

Screenwriters know that if a plot element is proposed by a character (usually a main character), the viewer usually accepts it unquestioningly, no matter how absurd said plot element may be. Shalako contains such an element.

Sean Connery and crew (about six other people, to my recollection) are trying escape from the Indians by leaving a besieged fort and sneaking away to a distant mountain. This in itself is an absurd proposition. I mean, white people can't just sneak out of a fort in broad daylight and fool a band of Indians. Not even when, on Connery's order, they go the long way because, as he explains, "the Indians won't expect it".

Anyway, when our stealthy little gang gets to an outcropping of boulders, Connery gets busy. Sean tells them all to hide behind the rocks, and then he reaches into his bag of tricks. After all are safely hidden, he takes a tree branch and proceeds to (you guessed it) erase their tracks!! He obliterates about 20 feet of footprints, brushes around a corner and, just for good measure, erases the last 15 feet leading to the rocks. And sure enough, the Injuns are completely dumbfounded! They follow the tracks all the way up to where they end and then, 'Wow! Where did they go?!' They sit there on their horses for a few minutes scratching their heads and then, as the palefaces peek out from behind the rocks, they turn and trot off into the sunset. 'Paleface disappear into thin air. We no lookum anymore. Injuns go back'. Hard to believe, but Sean pulls it off. Maybe while the Indians were learning how to track footprints they should have also learned how to follow brush marks left by tree branches.

But whatever. As it turns out, our heroes could have saved themselves alot of trouble by simply staying where they were. In the end the Indians found 'em anyway, and the end the film's main conflict was solved in a typical Hollywood fight to the death. As it turns out, this little trek serves no purpose except to fill out about 45 minutes worth of run time. And to show us how crafty a really witty white guy can be.

Ever notice how the screenwriter, through a character who supposedly knows what he-she is talking about, can sometimes introduce a plot element that, unless we sit back and analyze what has just been offered, we blindly accept?

'The General's Daughter' contains such an element: The General's daughter has just been murdered. Understandably, the General is quite upset and wants to keep this incident out of the media. Therefore, he tells John Travolta, the crime must be solved in 10 days. If it is not solved in ten days, the FBI will get involved. This must be avoided, because unless the FBI enters the fray, the media will not find out about the murder and a successful cover-up can be accomplished.

Say what?

How in Hell's name does the FBI getting or not getting involved in the murder investigation have anything to do with whether or not the story becomes a headline? The woman lives off base. She sees people: her neighbors and her landlady, for instance (in films it seems it's always a landlady; hardly ever a landlord). She does business with people in the local community. She has friends. She works with people. Someone just may notice she's missing. Someone may ask questions. Then there is the matter of local law enforcement. They knew all about the murder, and were rather agitated about the entire affair. HELLO? Do we not realize that local newshounds read police reports? I mean, c'mon. It's part of their job. And finally, there is the tiny matter of where and how the body was found (I won't give it away, but suffice to say it wasn't very well hidden). When dead bodies are found lying around rumors start to fly, and anyone who has ever been in the military, or that matter in any job environment, knows how rumors get around.

But let's just keep the FBI out of this. Wouldn't want THEM blabbing all over the place!

'High Noon', starring Gary Cooper, is an all-time classic western. Cooper is a sheriff who is about to face almost certain death at the hands of a gunslinger. He knows it, the town knows it. But no one lifts a finger to help him, even though he helped the town grow...a leading citizen, if you will. In the end, though, he prevails. But the setting; it could have been set in the present. It could have been futuristic, it could have been set in any era. I guess the same could be said about most westerns, but 'High Noon' stands out as a morality play that just happens to be set in the Old West.

All of the above could be said about 'McCabe' except for one thing: in the end, McCabe does not prevail. He is hunted down by the hired killers and, although they get theirs, he gets his as well. Where 'High Noon' leaves the viewer feeling satisfied, 'McCabe' leaves us in an oddly uncomfortable mood. "Just what is wrong with people, anyhow?" Even the preacher turns on him, threatening to shoot him, sending him out of sanctuary and forcing him to leave his rifle, his only chance at survival, in the church. Neither film is a strong endorsement of mankind, but while 'High Noon' leaves us with some hope, 'McCabe' drives the point right through our hearts: when the chips are down, you can't count on anyone but yourself.

I didn't think this was a very good movie. As Roger Ebert pointed out, it is very formulaic, though I can get past that. What I can't get past are the illogical plot elements. Case in point: Danny Roman (Samuel L. Jackson) gives Chris Sabian (Kevin Spacey) 20 minutes to talk to him or he's going to kill a hostage. The cops call Chris, he gets in his car, high-tails to the scene of the crime in downtown Chicago, and contacts Danny on his cell phone as he's getting out of the car. This plot element has two illogical aspects. First, it was established that Sabian is not on the local force, at least not from the local precinct. If you have ever driven in and around Chicago, you would understand that you can't get from anywhere to anywhere in 20 minutes, even on a good day. He could have given him five minutes and it would have made as much sense. Even so, I can deal with this, impossible as it can be. But here's the thing: why didn't Sabian get on his cell phone while he was still stuck in traffic? Why did he have to wait until he was practically standing in front of the building? Why risk a hostage's life? We're not supposed to think about that sort of thing. We're supposed to accept at face value that they couldn't communicate until Sabian arrived at the scene. Dumb!

Something else we're not supposed to think about: no matter how great the motive, it's AGAINST THE LAW to take hostages, especially if you do so at gunpoint and threaten to kill them. We are led to believe that, because Roman was vindicated of his alleged crimes against police, that all was forgiven and life goes on happily ever after. Don't think so.

A thriller is supposed to take us to the edge by weaving in strange twists (there were none), or by weaving in the almost impossible (NOT the impossible). But don't insult our intelligence. Get real.

I predict that in the future we will be seeing alot of Edward Norton in alot of juicy roles. Who would have dreamed the baby faced kid in 'Primal Fear' could have pulled off a performance such as the one he gave as Derek? I'll bet there were alot of auditions for this role. I'll also bet that, once Norton did his thing, it was a slam-dunk. Simply incredible and, disturbingly, incredibly believable. Then again, he was aided by a fantastic script. Playing the role as a very intelligent, though misguided young man, I found it hard to argue with his logic, twisted as it was (think about the scene at the dinner table). That bothered me. This guy is going to go a long, long, way. Maybe another Robert DeNiro. Just hope he doesn't O.D. on gangster roles. Too much of a good thing, ya know?

stanhejl@netscape.net

Jane Fonda in her Oscar-winning role as 'Bree'; a prostitute being stalked by the bad guy. Donald Sutherland plays the good guy: a private dick who, initially, is out to find a missing person. For my money's worth he plays it way too dead pan. He probably wouldn't have played it any differently if he was acting in his sleep. Quite a departure from his excellent job in "Kelley's Heroes", for instance. Jane, on the other hand, really kicks butt. She has this nervous energy that pretty much became her trademark. You believe her, you sympathize with her, you sort of fall just a little bit in love with her. She may be a prostitute, but she doesn't come off like a slut. She's kind and sympathetic with her tricks, and she's damn good at her job. You get the feeling her customers couldn't help but get their money's worth. As they say, "you go, girl!"

stanhejl@netscape.net

So just what makes this movie so good; such a pleasure to watch? Obviously, the acting was superb. I never heard of Ian McKellen before, but his award-winning performance was something to behold: very restrained, very subtle, yet very powerful. Brendan Fraser was a pleasant surprise. I enjoyed his natural, innocent style in "Encino Man" and "Blast from the Past", the only two films I've seen him in, but that sample did not demonstrate much range. In "Gods and Monsters" range was the operative. He demonstrated his easy innocence in the opening scenes. Later on, while posing for his portrait, Brandon does anger. In the end, when Whales goads Boone into nearly strangling him, Brandon does more anger, Brandon does frustration, Brandon does sadness. Didn't know he had it in him. As for Lynn Redgrave, I didn't even know it was her until the end credits. She was great. Fantastic Hungarian accent. These characters were totally believable.

Another reason this was a great film: it didn't follow any typical Hollywood formula. Very unique. No big action sequence. No romance. OK, Whales and Boone have a certain intimacy; an emotional attachment. How many films have no romantic sub-plot? No femme fatale. No suspense. Still, it works. Go figure.

The ending, though, falls flat through implausibility. Boone hits Whale in the face and nearly strangles him to death. The next morning he's found dead in his pool. They push the body back into the water so as not to draw suspicion to Boone. This is where they blew it. Cops, or at least coroners, tend to notice facial bruises and hand prints around corpse's necks. In the real world the suspicion would have fallen right back on Boone. But then again it's only a movie, so what the heck.

This, John Carpenter's second film, has been compared and supposedly heavily influenced by the John Wayne film "Rio Lobo" in that both plots revolve around bad guys laying siege to the good guys. So say just about every film critic.

Me, I thought I was watching a remake of "Night of the Living Dead". The single, synthesized song (bars is more to the point) sets the same doomed, eerie tone. Instead of zombies methodically attacking an isolated farm house, we have Latino gang bangers methodically attacking an isolated police station. The action is the same: the good guys are stuck. No way out. The assault is relentless. Whenever someone tries to make a break they're cut down. The zombies (punks) who get in, (and there are many), are mercilessly cut down. Carnage, doom, and desperation. Have a nice day.

First let me qualify: I enjoyed the Phantom Menace. I'm not here to be a Menace-basher. Special effects are as good as advertised, maybe better. Fantastic, as a matter of fact. The worlds Lucas imagined and created were fantasy first rate. Anyone who followed the pre-hype already knew the plot before walking into the theatre, but what the heck?

So what is wrong with the Phantom Menace. Three things:

1) dialogue 2) acting 3) Jar Jar Binks

OK, maybe bad dialogue was a product of bad acting. Maybe bad acting was because of bad directing. Hard to tell. The fact is, it was horrible. Except for Liam Neeson and Jake Lloyd, the characters were incredibly wooden. I thought I was watching statues; maybe not-so-animated f/x. Ewan McGregor looked and sounded as if he were starring in an old Steve Reeves gladiator movie. If Natalie Portman ever changed her expression from deadpan, I think her face would have cracked. Almost ditto Pernilla August. Which is what makes me think maybe the problem lies with the directing. How could so many actors of this caliber turn in the same kind of sterile, stoic, performance? These people had no feel, no warmth. Compare them with Luke, Leia, and Han. You can't. There IS no comparison. The first Star Wars was such a success not just because of the special effects, but because the audience, for whatever reasons, developed an affinity with these very human people. We really liked them. Lucas seems to not realize the importance of this.

And then there is Jar Jar. He's really, really, annoying. An audience can tolerate a character they hate. In fact, they love to hate a villain. They love a character they love. Goes without saying. But people don't like being annoyed, and on this count Jar Jar, unfortunately, delivers. His voice, his overbearing attitude, his voice, his dialect, his voice. Everything about him is annoying. And for an aquatic being, what's with the stumpy feet? How is he supposed to swim with those things? Any aquatic creature worth his saltwater would have evolved web feet. Name one aquatic animal that has feet which doesn't have webbed feet? You can't.

And with all that's wrong, the special effects still made for an un-paralleled movie experience. Totally blew me away. Lucas accomplished what he set out to do. Too bad he forgot about the rest of the elements that make up a good movie.

A little town on a Scottish Isle suffers the most horrifying predicament, of which the outbreak of WWII in hindsight seemed to be an omen: they're out of whiskey! Everyone goes into an almost catatonic state until fortune takes a turn for the better: a ship is wrecked on a reef. The cargo: 50,000 cases of whiskey. But there's one do-gooder, the local militia leader, who just can't allow the cargo to be put to use. That, he says would lead to anarchy. Many well defined characters, good plot.

This is one of those movies I saw in the theater as a kid. Simply put, it was hilarious. Maybe it was mob mentality, but virtually EVERYONE in the entire place was laughing uncontrollably throughout the entire film. We're talking a real side-splitter here, folks. I have never laughed so hard at a movie before or since, with the possible exception of another Disney film, "The Absent-Minded Professor" (1961) which I also saw in a theater.

So what makes a good film, anyhow? Fantastic acting? Great plot? Beautiful cinematography? Superb directing? Babes? Well, you can't say it had any of those things. But it DID set out to do what it attempted to do, which was: make people laugh. A lot. And that makes it, in my opinion, a pretty darn good movie.

Sort of a watered-down John Waters-type movie, this Australian film is not for everyone's taste. Talk about a dysfunctional family: Kay is a cold fish who steals a man who just announced his engagement to someone else, all because of a fortune-teller. "Sweetie", her younger sister, is a nymphomaniac, mentally unstable, selfish, and seemingly has the mind of a spoiled little brat. Her parents try to act as if all is not as bad as it seems. But life sucks in this family. I wondered how, with two seemingly "normal" parents, these two girls ended up the way they did. Guess it happens all the time, though.

How about that? A John Waters film with real actors. Whodda thunkit? Anyhow, Kathleen Turner is the killer mom. Not as gross as the old Devine films. But still sort of Wateresque.

I saw this film in a theater then it was released, and it was one of my more memorable movie experiences. A rather longish movie, I thought it was moving a bit slow. Watchable, interesting, but not very scary. But, without actually realizing it, the tension was slowly building, building, building. Why do I say this? Because with about a half hour left of the movie, I suddenly realized I was literally sitting on the edge of my seat. I don't think this has ever happened to me before or since, with the possible exception of "The Exorcist" or "The Omen". That, my friends, is a sign of a very good film indeed: it accomplished what it set out to accomplish, which was to jangle thoroughly jangle the viewer's nerves.

Monty Clift's second film, he went to Europe & stayed in a Swiss army camp for months to get the feel of things. Filmed on location in post-war Munich, we get a true feeling of how devastating WWII really was. His scenes were a cut above the rest in the movies. Plot: He befriends a 10yr. old Czeck D.P. The child actor knew no English. He learned his lines by rote memory. Clift battled with the producer over the Script. He insisted on changing it, Mr. Producer insisted he didn't. Clift won.

I thought I saw everything until I saw Charles Laughton do comedy. His range is phenomenal. In one film he is playing Captain Bligh, and here he plays a shy, insecure British butler who ends up out west. Some scenes, although subtle, are hilarious. Laughton, besides being an actor, gave performances in oral reading and recital. Here he does a recital of the Gettysburg Address that is just fantastic. I mean, who would think something every grade school kid had to memorize could be moving. But it is. This movie is for anyone who really appreciates a truly gifted actor.

A "cerebral" sci-fi, the critics hated it, and so did most viewers, it seems. I thought it was worth watching, but it wouldn't make my favorites list. Dustin Hoffman, Sharon Stone, Samuel L. Jackson, et.al. investigate a spaceship crashed - I forget how far - something like 5,000 or 10,000 feet below the ocean's surface. There turns out to be an influential "sphere" on board. Exactly what it is, and why and how it got there was not adequately explained. But I guess if we just accept it at face value we're OK. Watch it when you have enough peace and quiet to follow the dialogue. One thing I came away with was a greater appreciation of Sharon Stone's acting ability. Never liked her much in the past, but she was pretty decent in a role that was not too demanding. Actually, none of the roles were too demanding. Either that or else the actors were just going through the motions for whatever reason, but the performances seemed uninspired at best.

Very interesting film. Not much of a script: the only dialogue is in grunts and groans. But still, the film gets its point across. We learn that even cave people have distinct personalities. We learn that they learn. Last but not least, we learn they have great, get down and get dirty sex. And life goes on...