thebigsee

Ignore the "best documentary every made" reviews you see here -- the truth lies in the reviews that are 5 stars or less. I was seduced on Amazon Prime by the title, description and nice camera work in the preview, but don't repeat my mistake.

This documentary reminded me strongly of another documentary I watched by an actor/aspiring indie filmmaker friend of mine. He was fascinated by his grandfather and spent months following this poor man around filming him. When it was all done he catered a big party at a producer/friend's mansion for a premiere. About a hundred people were there and there was much anticipation about this film that my friend had been hyping for months. And in the end we all had to sit through an hour-and-a-half of his grandfather talking about his first wife, his divorce, and his career as a train conductor. Then the film ended.

That's what this film is like. You meet this eccentric, semi-charming but basically unremarkable and ultimately unlikeable bum who seems to have accomplished nothing with his life and has some obsession with a walking stick he found on a lake in Scotland and a potential connection to lost treasure. He is self-absorbed and embittered towards his 90-year-old mother (the most interesting person in the film by the way) for having the nerve of living so long and holding him back. In the end you are just left with three questions: Is this guy crazy? Or is he just a jerk? And finally, why was this film even made? One gets the impression the director knew this guy and figured there was something interesting in his life but after shooting tons of footage realizes there isn't any there there and just edits something together to justify his efforts.

My wife and I had just finished watching the entire series of "Longmire" and "Anne With An E" and, feeling somewhat lost and bereft, we stumbled upon this show and decided to watch it.

I could go on for many paragraphs on the problems we had with this show but in summary: Incredibly predictable storylines; stereotypical, one-dimensional characters, and high-school-play quality dialogue.

The worst thing about this show were the laughably unbelievable situations that surpassed one's ability to suspend disbelief. In particular, the entire setting of the show in a small "lumberjack"mountain town in rural Northern California that also happened to be able to support a cool Portland-style artisan baking truck and a perennially packed local bar that served up gourmet-level fare. I have been to rural Northern California mountain towns and you are lucky if you can get a cheeseburger on stale bread most of the time.

Only reason I can surmise that this show had enough good ratings to be renewed is COVID-19. My theory is that people were stuck indoors and were hungry for new content. I will say that the cinematography was very good and the outdoor scenes were often beautiful but guess what -- it was all shot in British Columbia! The Coastal Range of Northern California is nowhere near as breathtaking.

I would not have seen this movie except it was a last-minute spontaneous choice while on a second date with a ravishing green-eyed beauty. I appreciated the attention to detail in this film and the performances were excellent, but I have a feeling if I hadn't been innocently exchanging delicious G-rated hand, arm and leg caresses from my incredibly sexy date, I would have committed suicide watching this grim, muddy, gory, visceral, depressing film. So watch only with a woman (or man!) that is getting you hot under the collar and it will be great. And in case you're wondering, no, I didn't get lucky that night but I felt so good during that movie I could have cared less.

If you are looking to see Danny Kaye in his absolute prime, look no further than "The Kid from Brooklyn". This film was the third made by Kaye during his first filming contract (MGM) and it's fresh and funny even now in 2006 for so many reasons. Having cut his teeth in "Up In Arms" and "Wonder Man", he appears more polished and his act has found its place. This is the film where he would "find his mark" and then subsequently hit a grand-slam with "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty".

Here is the Kaye most beloved by all -- the nervous, lovable milquetoast with a secret extrovert/entertainer side, incredible physical comedy and exuberance; a funny, fast-paced almost screwball script featuring the best on-screen partners Kaye would ever work with (particularly his unscrupulous manager and wonderfully deadpan Eve Arden); the always lovely Virgina Mayo as his love interest; and spectacular music/dance numbers, including his tongue-twisting "Pavlowa". This is Kaye bursting with energy, youth and vitality, on-top-of the world (literally) and knowing it. Kaye could literally do no wrong from 1940 - 1950, and this film captures the confidence and joie de vivre that can only come from knowing that the entire world worships every move you make and word you say. This was Kaye's time in the sun and he soaks up every ray and sends it into the camera.

In addition, this film benefits greatly from a more ensemble feel. Kaye is clearly the star, but there is balance with songs and dancing from other members of the cast. It's my opinion that his best work (if not the most memorable) came when he was still on the rise and had to take orders from the studio bosses. In his later films -- such as "Hans Christian Andersen" -- Kaye would have more control and would even exercise this control to eliminate "competition" from other actors by singing the songs written for other characters. In the "Kid from Brooklyn", we see a humbler, hungrier Kaye.

Also -- this is often overlooked -- the historical context of this film adds much to your enjoyment of it. Not only was Kaye on top of the world, but America was, having emerged victorious from WWII and with a booming economy. The optimism shines through in the songs, the dance, and especially the incredibly saturated, gorgeous color photography. This was a Technicolor picture when most films were shot in black and white (and would continue to be for the next 15-20 years!) and you sense that MGM wanted not just color on the screen, but C-O-L-O-R! Check out some of the outfits, particularly worn by Eve Arden -- they are almost overwhelming in their colorfulness and this adds to the fun. It's almost like watching a Disney cartoon, it is that colorful.

Add to it the period flavor -- the incredible costumes, the inherent dash and style of a bypassed era when even a milkman looked eye-catching -- and you can't help but brim over with fun watching this film. I have watched this many times in my life and here I am, a world-weary Generation Xer hitting 36 and I still let out a pure, spontaneous laugh at the non-cynical humor. This film is just funny and fun -- period.

I just watched "The Court Jester" for the first time in a few years and I was surprised at how it left me a bit flat. I'm going through a "Kaye phase" right now and have just watched "Inspector General" and "Kid from Brooklyn" and considering how "Court Jester" is lauded as his greatest film and one of the best comedies ever made, I found it not as much fun as the other two films.

This is not to say that "Court Jester" isn't a good movie, but it didn't live up to all the hype I've read on this board and in his biographies. It's a great cast, has great photography and costumes, songs are fun, and Kaye of course is charming. But I found it all a lot more camp than I remembered, especially the scenes where he is dancing around in the Fox's clothes. Also, knowing the "real" Kaye from his biographies, it was a period where his star/era had begun to fade and his personal life was quite dark, and I think this comes through a bit. At this stage in his life he was bored with his public persona as a tongue-twisting milquetoast and it made me feel like he was going through the motions a bit. Also, the era of the Hollywood musical was ending and this film probably was a bit goofy when it was released, considering the age of the Dean/Brando anti-hero had begun and the Summer of Love was only about 10 years away! What this film is best remembered for, of course, is the "Vessel with the pestle" bit which will go down in comedy history along with the "Who's on First?" routine and other such stuff. It's good writing and of course Kaye gives us a laugh for it, but I feel like this is all people really remember about this film and they overlook the rest. Though the film is full of great actors and beautiful women, it tends to sag when Kaye is off-screen.

To top it off, this film was a dismal financial failure when it was released, recouping only about half of its production costs. After this, Kaye's film career faded with each subsequent effort. This film would probably ring more true if it had been made 10 years earlier when Kaye had captured the zeitgeist and was more youthful.

All in all, this film is fun and certainly worth watching but the more you know about Danny Kaye, the less you will enjoy it. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose!

I remember watching this live when I was 10 years old. My lasting image of it is of my beloved Danny Kaye dressed in a cruddy wizard costume shilling this little kid about Disneyland and how great it was. I grew up adoring Danny Kaye and seeing him in that goofy costume seemed so beneath him and I sort of shudder thinking about it even now. It's the sort of thing that you'd see a washout doing -- not the unique, successful, and immensely talented Kaye. There was this sense of desperation about it that I sensed even back then. I know he didn't need the money as he was incredibly loaded -- I guess he either just liked to work or he was doing Eisner a favor? But even under all that wizard magic, he was still great.

I stumbled across this DVD at my local library so I took it home and watched it -- I'm glad I did! It appears to be a theatrical adaptation of a Russian fairytale -- goblins, witches, children disobeying their parents and learning a lesson from it, etc. It's very colorful and bizarre and though a little surreal/disjointed at times, it is competently made and would certainly delight children between ages 5-10 I'd say. Actually, it is very very similar to another Russian film -- "Morozko" (Jack Frost), which was featured on Mystery Science Theater. It's so familiar in fact that the witch character of Baba Yaga was played by the same actor in both films! And the witch lives in the same house -- a cabin that walks around with the aid of chicken legs! If you come across it and want to expose your kids to something culturally different that they won't get bored of or if you just are a fan of colorful, strange Russian cinema, definitely watch it!

There was not a bad actor in this film. I could go down the list and talk about what a stellar cast this was, but that's been done over and over. All I will say on that subject is that Clint Eastwood can really attract talent -- just seeing the fabulous Eli Wallach in a cameo was a delight. And isn't it almost impossible to believe that the same man who "became" Jimmy Markum for this movie once played Jeff Spicoli? Just goes to show what a true talent Sean Penn is (btw, Jeff Spicoli was a fine bit of acting).

I'm writing this because here we have an intriguing story, a great director, one of the best casts ever assembled, excellent editing and photography . . . and the end result did not satisfy me. Why is that? I think because there was so much ambiguity. I don't require a happy ending to feel satisfied, but I like to have a firm grasp of what it was all about. I mean, everyone can die and the world can be destroyed but if it is done well and makes sense, I'm alright with it. Reading the message boards on this movie confirms that many others were left with lingering questions. Who actually pulled the trigger? Why the 911 call? Was it an accident or intentional? If an accident, why was the body so beat-up? There are just too many conflicting inferences. Kevin Bacon at the end of the film -- the "gun-click" with the fingers -- is this supposed to infer something profound? I guess Eastwood wanted to end with ambiguity -- like the real world -- but it is frustrating. This is a very good film and the actor's portrayals are so spectacular that you can overlook this sort of dissatisfaction. Why it was considered Best Picture material I don't really know, though.

I had watched "Mitchell" many many times on MST3K and had basically memorized the entire show out of love. One day my brother and I were talking about a local diner/bowling alley in Woodland Hills, California -- "Woodlake Bowl" -- and we were remarking how much our dad liked it and how it wasn't what it once was. My brother said, "You know who I see whenever I go there? Joe Don Baker." I was thrilled to hear this but next time I went to the Woodlake Bowl for lunch with my Dad, I wasn't thinking I'd see Joe Don. It was a rainy day and as I exited my car and waited for my Dad to get out of the passenger side, an aged Datsun 240Z with cracked and fading paint pulled up in the spot next to mine. I started walking in a minute or so later and then I heard from behind me - in an unmistakable boomy Texas drawl: "YOUR HEADLIGHTS IS ON." I turned around to stare Joe Don face-to-face! I was starstruck, like I had met Brad Pitt or Marilyn Monroe or something. It was raining and Joe Don was in a long coat and droopy hat. And yes, he said "is on", not "are on"! I thanked him and he went on his way. I couldn't help but think of his face and of MST3K's description of him: "A melting bear". It was spot-on. As I walked past his rust-bucket 240Z, I couldn't help but have a peek inside. I remember the interior was just as bad as the exterior and he had a lot of softball equipment under the hatchback. I sort of imagined Joe Don as a little-league softball coach at that point and for all I know he is! But overall I was left with the feeling he was a lonely bachelor type who ate meals alone at a divey diner every day and drove a junkbox of a car -- hey, sounds like Mitchell! But seriously, I felt he is too much maligned as he seemed like a melancholy but nice guy. You go, Joe Don!

I saw the MST3K version of "Deathstalker III" and loved the movie so much -- even "unmystied" -- that I decided to watch the entire series of "Deathstalker" films. I bought I and II and settled down for a laugh.

Nothing about "Deathstalker I" was funny on any level and when the credits rolled I was embarrassed and regretful that I had bought it! Too much ugliness and nudity. I guess either "DS 3" was a much cleaner production or MST3K really edited a lot because I expected something similar, i.e. stupid and carefree and simple. I was wrong. Even at $6.99 it seemed a waste of money. I didn't even open "DS 2" as I will return it tomorrow. Now I'll probably just throw away this DVD as I can't return it and no one wants it -- including myself! So really, don't bother with this one. Even the nudity (lots of it, btw) is uninspiring and icky.

This is a forgettable movie -- even the MST3K version is tepid compared to other episodes of that great show. But one scene stands out for me in this odd little film about an insane island-dwelling man who likes to hunt people. A man -- apparently part of his "stocked prey" program -- wanders up to our protagonists. He's dirty, clothes torn, beard overgrown, obviously been there for awhile. He wants to say something to the gang -- he's down on his knees, pleading with arms raised in supplication -- but all he says is "Ahh! Ahh! Ahh!" And you can tell this actor was really giving it his "Stanislavsky Method" all, and the director was probably yelling at him, "I want more torture in your 'Ahhs'!" In the end, he looks like a mute Al Jolson on skid row. It's worth watching the film for the giggle you'll get from this poor dope.

First I must say that "Sith" is the best installment since "Empire", and that's strong praise from someone who saw "A New Hope" at the age of 7 at the drive-in in 1977 and who went on to essentially worship the Star Wars universe through his pre-teen years. Well done, cast and crew of "Sith" for making a memorable "finale" to Star Wars (though I'm confident this franchise will be resurrected in the next 5-10 years in some form or other). Casting was great, effects as usual were great, story was tight, and I actually cared about the characters this time around compared to the frankly tepid previous two efforts. I was so happy to see that the amazing Ewan MacGregor finally got a meaty part in these films and that he demonstrated how awesome Obi-Wan was. No one else could have prequeled Guinness, period.

Now, for the reason of my post! It was intentional, the Frankenstein homage at the end? It was a bit over-the-top but not inappropriate. But seriously, I was waiting for Vader to say "Fire Bad!" or something.

And the other -- did anyone besides myself notice how poorly lit Padme was on the balcony after Anakin has his nightmare and gets up? She has her back to the camera, then turns around and WHAMMO, we're face to face with horror itself! She's a truly beautiful woman, so it was amazing that she could look so haggard and wan, but that's the power of lighting for you! I almost thought SHE had surrendered to the Dark Side. Reminded me of that "Seinfeld" episode where he's dating a beautiful woman who looks awful in bad lighting. Oh well.

Thanks again to all the stars and people behind the scenes from 30 years ago to right now who made it all happen -- it was a blast!

I LOVE Don Knotts, let me just say that up-front! He is an enormous talent and the best at what he does, which is portray a nervous, lovably befuddled loser thrown into a position of authority. He is fabulous in this role as Roy Fleming, the Reluctant Astronaut, but the film is pretty dull, really, even though as a kid my brother and I delighted in watching this and his other films. It's still worth watching but really it's a film that is best enjoyed by children. I'd categorize it as 100% family-friendly and something you could sit down and watch with your kids on a family night.

As with all of Knotts' films, there's a great cast of beloved character actors and you can't help but smile when Knotts gives one of his shaky, open-mouthed stares, no matter how old and jaded you are.

From an adult perspective, one thing I think that is great about this film is how it captures NASA in the 1960s -- all the new modern buildings, the hope, the optimism, the future! And I was surprised at how suave and studly Leslie Neilsen was back then. Only complaint about the story is Roy's love interest, a rather threadbare, unlikeable woman who can't give him the time of day until he becomes a big shot -- if you're like me, you'll be hoping that he gives her the shove-off at the end. Beware -- you'll be whistling the theme tune for days after watching, it's that catchy.

I saw the trailer to this film while watching another video, and the shot of Jay Mohr pathetically diving into a swimming pool while he's supposed to be sexy and suave had me and my girlfriend literally in tears laughing. We rented the movie the next night and then sat waiting and waiting and waiting for the laughs to kick in as with "Airplane" or "Naked Gun" but they just were not there! The opening credits were somewhat funny, but after that, zero. Not even the previously mentioned diving scene managed to spark a laugh as by that point we'd felt as though we'd been had. And if memory serves well, there were many shots of the elegant and classy Olympia Dukakis farting. I was embarrassed for her.

I heard the talented and very funny Jay Mohr on the radio sometime in 2000 and the DJ asked him about this film, insinuating that it was less than wonderful, and all Jay could say was, "Funniest script I ever read -- period". With that cast and that sentiment, it makes you wonder what went wrong. One commenter here mentioned that the film seemed to take itself seriously at times and I recall that to be the case too -- perhaps they just couldn't decide what it was. Too bad, it could have been very funny.

I LOVE the character of Henry Krasker and after countless viewings of this odd little film I find my curiosity about the actor Aldo Farnese just keeps hanging on. He created and performed some well-loved kiddie shows in Philadelphia years after this forgotten film, and also worked as a cameraman around Philadelphia, particularly at the Spectrum (whatever that is/was!). I corresponded briefly with his son a few years back and was saddened to hear that he'd passed away in the 90s.

I also was contacted by the son of the actress who played the murdered Renee in the film. That was many years ago and all he could tell me was that neither his mom nor anyone else was paid for their work on the film (the old, "You get a share of the profits" thing) and that his mom was alive and well and living in Manhattan and that she still had the producer's business card! As her son was a diamond broker as I recall, I like to think of her living in luxury somewhere in a Manhattan skyscraper.

Anyone who has any other info about Aldo Farnese or this film, please contact me! Thanks!

I remember my girlfriend and I going to see this movie in great anticipation on its opening weekend back in 1992. It just seemed perfect -- a comedy about a down-and-out clown with a drinking problem. Had a solid cast as well with impressive cameo appearances. The sub-plot with the rivalry between mimes and clowns was another great idea.

But it was, and remains, in the top 5 of the most disappointing and inexcusably awful films I've ever endured. Some films are bad due to low budget, or poor talent, or bad concept (or a combination of these things), but this had everything it needed and failed -- resoundingly -- on all fronts. I remember sitting there with my sweet girlfriend and just waiting and waiting for a laugh -- anything -- to show up. Only one thing made us laugh -- when Shakes is trash-talking with another clown in the clown bar and the clown is at a loss for words and says something like, "Well, you're the captain of the diarrhea club". Doesn't sound funny does it? In any other film it would have been a terrible and disgusting line but to a tearful of moviegoers desperate for a laugh, it was like water in the desert.

My lasting impression of this film was how deeply mean-spirited, overly dark, cruel, and scatological it was. It was as if 11-year-old bullies were given the task to write/direct/produce a major motion picture. Those attributes are rarely really funny, even to pre-teens.

You WILL be disappointed with this film -- it doesn't even have value as something to poke fun at. Instead of watching this film, watch "Kingpin" instead, which is a similar sort of film but is actually watchable and humorous at times.

This is a very obscure, essentially forgotten construction-based show from NBC from 1959-1960. My father, Chet Allen, played the role of "Slats" on the show. He has for many years tried to obtain VHS/DVD copies of the show but with no success. There is rumor that the archives were destroyed due to neglect over the years. I've never seen the show and would be delighted to be able to do so. Anyone out there with any concrete information about how to obtain copies of this show or who is in contact with former cast members or who have any memorabilia from the show, please feel free to contact me. My Dad would be really grateful if you have any information. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks.

I keep seeing bits and pieces of this embarrassing film on Cinemax as I check to see what other, BETTER, fare will be on later. So I haven't seen the whole thing, and never will either. I first saw the opening ten minutes where it appears a 747-full of ridiculous punk-goth stereotypes are boarding to go to some concert. There's the slutty groupies, the mohawks, the chains, the leather, the whole deal. The dialogue -- along the lines of "We're gonna ROOOCCCK!" -- made my skin crawl and so I switched the channel, assuming this was just another made-for-cable space-filler.

Tonight, I catch the last 20 minutes, and was amazed to find the likes of Rutger Hauer (Blade Runner), Gabrielle Anwar (Scent of a Woman), Craig Sheffer (Cecil B. Demented) and Joe Mantegna(!) in the cast. Things must be getting very very competitive in the film industry for so many notable names to slum in this dreck. I was astonished to watch the climax consisting of the old "the pilot's dead and an amateur has to land this 747", but with a twist -- the plane is being brought down by the lead singer of the rock band! Imagine Marilyn Manson on cocaine behind the stick of an airliner, that's what happened. Craig Sheffer as some sort of hoodlum with a flight simulator at home talks him down, and when he succeeds, Gabrielle (a law enforcement officer there to arrest this guy) decides to let him boff her instead. Mantegna looks despondent and disgusted as the plane lands and wanders offscreen, and I felt the same way. I'm sure all involved are embarrassed by this.

This movie is, of course, awful, but it's important to try to see the good in all things. I would think that if anything this is a great snapshot of biker culture from the late 60s, and offers a good view of "Old School" choppers from that era. It's no "Easy Rider" but it adds to the lexicon. Paul Teutel Sr. and Indian Larry would be proud.

For fans of Coleman Francis' "Red Zone Cuba", it's interesting to see all the alumni from that film in this one. RZC's Chastaine plays a biker; the "gallopin' dominoes" mercenary is Hiney; the "I'll run you out of town for changing your tires" sheriff is the hawk-faced sniper in the black suit; one of the posse re-emerges as the proprietor of the Moonfire Inn; and of course, there's Tony Cardoza, trading in his penchant for tossing helpless innocent old men down wells for a paintbrush in the California chapparal. I can't help but think that Coleman himself was somewhere in the film, perhaps behind the scenes. His spirit is certainly there.

What this film left me wondering was, "If this is what being a biker is like, how can it possibly be enjoyable?" Lying around in a hot dusty patch of chapparal, stoned? This is fun? It all just seems so dirty and scuzzy and depressing. The scene where the bikers inexplicably toss a trumpet-wielding hippy-friend into a stagnant pond just sort of encapsulates what I imagine the late 60s to be: Dirt, stink, muck, grease, filth, and senseless acts of stupidity. Were the 60s such a time of social change and improvement? I guess in some ways they were -- Civil Rights for minorities comes to mind. But overall, the legacy -- as evidenced by artifacts like "The Hellcats" -- is one of sloth, irresponsibility, carnality, and above all, selfishness. They rebelled against the suit-and-tie world of their parents, but if I had a choice, I'd have lived in the 30s/40s/50s a million times before I had to endure the 60s. No wonder the parents of Baby Boomers were so distressed, and no wonder the children of Baby Boomers are so incredibly screwed-up. I know -- I am one. Thanks, former hippies/bikers/counterculturists -- for nothing!