azjimnson

Hardly in the league with the Lubitsch touch, these tightwad, ham-fisted Israeli producers never made a good film. This one is no exception, and was made before they purchased the ailing-Cannon Films company. It sad to see the talent wasted here. Palance plays the entire film, except the last scene, with the same expression, Van Cleef is not even up to his uneven Italian Western form, but most of all it is sad to see Richard Boone reduced to participating in such trash. He looks physically ill, and in fact would die just a few years later. The less said about Leif Garret's "acting" the better. As if they were in a contest to see who could be most inept, the director, writers, and director of photography should have had their careers ended by this cynical mess of a movie. But with Golan-Globas ineptitude was apparent considered a virtue.

A lot of misinformation in some of the other reviews. The character who began to make the, "As long as I've got a face," remark--which was never finished-- was the the younger brother of Oates' character. The last name of Fabio Testi's character, who was nothing but respectful in his comments to Jenny Agutter's Catherine, was Drumm, not Jones. I do agree the score was not good, and I suspect Hellman had little control over that. He wasn't in a position of power after the brilliant "Two Lane Blacktop" flopped. It was coal, not oil, that Matthew (Oates) was counting on to make him rich. And Drumm did not "constantly drink cocaine laced whiskey." He had one bottle of it given to him by the owner of the circus. If I recall this was before the second lovemaking scene in the hotel, and cocaine, for those who don't know, makes one very amorous. I think it was meant as a joke. All that said, I have to agree this not a great Hellman film, and his approach was probably too contemplative for most fans of spaghetti Westerns. Even though the final shootout is more typical of the genre. I love the chief bad guy saying. "This didn't go so well," just before he attempts to surrender and Oates shoots him. It's a measure of Oates' skill as an actor that he manages to gain our sympathy for Matthew, even after admitting having killed a whole family, "right down to the dogs, the cats, and the chickens," for the railroad. I was surprised by Katherine's decision to stay with Matthew (though she really had little choice), and that final scene must have looked amazing in the original Technovision 235:1 frame. I think it symbolized that Oates was finally cutting his ties with his past completely. I think he was sincere when he told Catherine, "No one will hurt you again," meaning he wouldn't. Fabio Testi's accent was thick, but I give Hellman credit for not dubbing him, and for adding a back story about Drumm coming to the USA after his grandparents' death to explain it.And, yes, I think the West was full of people with nearly indecipherable accents. I've lived in the West for near to 20 years, and still can't understand some of the old timers.

Not all of the slapstick works, but there are more hits than misses. Frankly I think the humor and production values are better here than all but the first of "Trinity" western-comedies. The English dubbing is not "awful," as one reviewer stated. It's actually better than in many spaghetti Westerns. I liked the attention to detail in the depiction of even minor characters, like the bank employees & dishonest doctor who encases one brother in a total body cast. While I agree the American distributors were guilty of giving this film an terrible "let's cash on on a better movie" title, I don't think seeing the prelude would have added much.The picture already seems a bit too long, with a throw in the kitchen sink approach to the screen writing ("Then's let's have them try this and fail, an then this..."), when a plot more focused on one or two criminal acts might have been better. I also watched this as part of the Mill Creek 20 pack, mostly to get Monte Hellman's "China 9, Liberty 32" and "The Big Gundown" I have only found one (so far) that was truly unwatchable ("Apache Blood"). My main complaint is being deprived, in most cases, of seeing the films in the original Techniscope widescreen process (similar to Superscope but invented at Technicolor's Italian lab), which, through setting the number of frames per inch of film higher in the camera, used only half as much film as Cinemascope or Panavision did. Some complained they could see more grain in the projected image in theaters, but in many cases that worked to the film's advantage, contributing to a gritty washed out look. As with Superscope (now called Super 35), the anamorphic squeeze was done in the lab on an optical printer, enabling the directors to use normal rather than expensive anamorphic lenses in shooting these movies. Unlike Techniscope, Superscope used a normal frame in the camera, so did not save any film stock. The price of film stock was a large part of the cost of making feature movies back then. Now, with digital video, it's not an issue.

I think this might have made a good 30 minute short. I have not read the Steinbeck novella. I have read "East of Eden," "The Grapes of Wrath," and "Cannery Row," so I'm not ignorant of his work. Though I liked his novels an stories when I was younger, having a BA in English ,I know he is not considered a great writer on the level of Hemingway, Fitzgerald, or Faulkner. But his stories, "The Red Pony" is another, have a simplicity which make them a good tool for getting young people interested in reading. An English teacher gives examples in their review of how the 2001 film version of this same work differs from the novella. Presuming he or she is correct, this film also deviates from Steinbeck's story. In this film, Juana is presented as urging Kino to not go back down again and attempt to find an oyster with a pearl. In the story she is said to be praying for him to find one. Once he brings the oyster up and opens it, an ominous dark cloud appears above them. Trite and heavy-handed is too kind a description of sort of lazy film making. Yes it's well photographed, but exceptionally pretty photography for its own sake is a detriment in a narrative fictional movie, not a virtue. The visual aspect of a narrative film should move the story forward. In this case those scenes tend to stop the narrative dead in it's tracks. There are long sequences in "La Perla" that are nothing but a travelogue put in to pad the running time, while other portions are obviously shot on RKO's back lot. There's nothing realistic about the clean clothes of most of the villagers, and the perfect makeup of the leading lady is always in place, even after she's allegedly been trudging through a swamp for days. This is a phony Hollywood film. If you want to see the real conditions Mexicans and Mexican Americans lived under see "Salt of the Earth," even though it is set in the New Mexico. That's a great film. This is a one note morality tale with mediocre acting and trite symbolism.

I had the good fortune to interview Bud Cort when this film was released in the US in 1980. He told me that he felt as a character, Max, was closer to his actual character than the more eccentric roles he was most well known for playing. Apparently the book on which this movie is based is almost required reading for Canadian students at the level of US high school students. The film was a big hit in Canada. I would like to correct what one user review said about the film being shot in black and white. It was shot in color, but in muted tones. There's a "magic hour" shot of people carrying lanterns across a field that is quite striking, and reminded of the photography in "Days of Heaven."

I'm only giving this movie 3 stars for the pretty good night photography, but I've seen better night photography in TV movies made for Lifetime. If the director's last name had been Smith or Jones--and she was no relation to a famous director--who himself rides on his past reputation now, and hasn't made a good movie in years--we would have been spared this piece of self-indulgent, self-satisfied, and smug tripe. Mr Murray's character is supposed to be a former action movie star, the sort of actor who would have played sophisticated action heroes, such as James Bond. If you can buy that premise, your suspension of disbelief is strong enough to support the Golden Gate Bridge. And Scarlett's character is sooooo lonely, as her hot shot photographer boyfriend doesn't appreciate how good she looks in her underwear. Well, he's been there, seen that, right? Perhaps he has come to realize she's a brainless cipher who has nothing beneath her pretty surface but terminal self-pity, and an odd, brooding desire to sit semi-nude in hotel windows. So here comes the pitiful, sad sack, so-called action hero actor, equally depressed by his own self-awareness. And of course they bond in that Hollywood old guy young babe way, which makes me wonder if every Hollywood movie is now required to be partially a biography of Jack Nicholson. This film reminds me of a cartoon in the current issue of the New Yorker. In this cartoon three robots are shown sitting in front of typewriters, typing furiously. Two lab coat wearing researchers are standing behind the robots. One tells the other, "The robots all developed self-awareness, and then self-loathing. Now all they want to do is write novels." I suspect these robots are actual authors of this film's script.

In a tremendous insult to many actually talented filmmakers, Paste Magazine, in their March, 2010 issue, just listed Ms. Coppola as one of the "Top Fifty Living Directors," strictly on the basis of this one, pretentious film. They don't mention her even worse subsequent efforts, all of which are unwatchable unless one is sedated. Meanwhile, they left great directors like Nicholas Roeg and Monte Hellman, neither of whom has died, as far as I know, off the list entirely. No one will remember this fraud of a movie in another ten years, but the works of Roeg and Hellman will be preserved as classics of the cinema, and discussed by future film scholars the way the works of great directors of the past are discussed in film schools today. Ms Coppola has no more talent as a director than she demonstrated as an actor in that awful performance in her father's weakest "Godfather" sequel.

How so many otherwise astute critics were fooled by this piece of self-indulgent navel gazing, I can't understand. But nepotism runs deep in Hollywood, and perhaps there was some degree not wanting to disrespect Francis which colored their judgment.

I suppose it's a cliché to say the powers that be in Hollywood can't recognize talent, but Steven Ho does such a of great job of directing "Soundman," that it's amazing to me that he hasn't had another opportunity to display that skill again since 1998. When I went to Steven Ho's credits, I really expected to see at least some TV directing credits. As few and far between as good TV programs are, in the past many now famous directors learned their craft by directing TV episodes, or TV movies.

I don't want to stretch the comparison too far, but compare what happened to Richard Kelly after his strong directing debut, "Donnie Darko," to the nada that's happened to Steven Ho after an equally strong debut. I understand that Kelly had more powerful supporters in the Hollywood establishment, Drew Barrymore in particular. Still it is a measure of their respect for Ho that such fine indie film actors as Trejo, Studi, Forsythe, and Stahl signed on for "Soundman."

I'm glad that Steven Ho can earn a living as a stunt performer and sometimes as an actor, but it just seems so unfair that eleven years have passed now since his one and only small masterpiece.

While I originally saw "Soundman," on a Vanguard DVD, I recently found a used, much more deluxe version of it on first rites/Asylum. It is letter boxed, and contains commentaries by Ho and some of the actors, and even a "making of" documentary. Worth tracking down if you like this film as much as I do. Maybe going to Asylum's Website

www.theasylum.cc

might a least allow you to find out if this deluxe version is still available--it's not listed on Amazon.

I wonder if they had to book two seats for Franco Zefirelli when they flew him in from Italy to direct this through trashing of Scott Spenser's fine novel. Certainly an additional seat was needed to transport the immense ego of this overrated hack from Italy, who previously lucked out by making the one movie ,"Romeo and Juliet," that had a such a guaranteed audience it couldn't fail. I just hope Scott got a lot of money, 'cause seeing his fine novel turned into dung by this pretentious fraud must have been painful. Suffering through this poorly acted, horribly directed travesty has actually held me back from watching "Waking the Dead," which, while it my be a more respectful adaptation of a later Spencer novel does change some basic plot elements and eliminates several of the book's key characters.

I had fairly low expectations for this movie, but the combination of Phillip Seymour Hoffman being in it, and the prospect of hearing music from the time in my youth when I believed music--or the idea of freedom and freedom of ideas it expressed--really could change the world, made me decide to give it a chance. I'm so happy I did. I can appreciate movies with significant themes and stellar acting, but I can also appreciate movies that are just plain fun, and in which no one is taking themselves too seriously. "Pirate Radio" is just that sort of movie. I believe many of the negative comments about the length of the movie must be based on the original British version, as the version distributed here in the USA is not all that long. However, one can see signs some of the the subplots that were cut from the US release. Another thing--besides the lukewarm reviews-- that made me hesitant to see this movie was hearing it had been cut considerably by the US distributor. But that's not always a bad thing. For instance, I think Nicholas Roeg's director's cut of "The Man Who Fell to Earth" is inferior to the original theatrical version cut by an objective editor the studio hired. And someone certainly should have taken "Southland Tales" away from Richard Kelly. Sometimes directors fall so in love with their own work that they can't see how certain scenes detract from rather than add to the quality of the movie as a whole. Like another person who commented on "Pirate Radio," I was a part-time film reviewer back in the late 70s and early 80s, albeit for a free weekly paper in Hermosa Beach, CA--a job that...well, it was not really a job in the sense that the pay was far too low to have lived on without other employment. Anyway, back then I tended to review art house films and, occasionally, "serious" Hollywood product, which usually meant independent productions picked up by major studios, and/or the work of certain directors who had track records of producing worthwhile films. I doubt I would have bothered reviewing "Pirate Radio" had it been released then. It's a matter of some doubt as to whether reviewers' opinions have any significant impact on the box office of mainstream movies. And some films, such as this one, are virtually critic proof.

I have noted that several people wrote in their reviews that there was "too much violence" in "The Fall" for a "kid's movie." This movie is not aimed at young children (though mature 15 or 16 year old teens should be able to appreciate it), and is not a kid's movie anymore than the current Spike Jonze film version of "Where the Wild Things Are" is a "kid's movie--"interesting that Jonze was one of co-executive producers for the US release version of "The Fall." Both "WTWTA" and "The Fall" are quite complex, coming of age (fall from innocence) movies intended for people who are mature enough to understand the themes involved. Though both can be enjoyed for their amazing visuals. I am astonished that a couple reviewers referred to "The Fall," which was such an obvious labor of love and dedication on the part of Tarsem, as "garbage," or "the worst movie ever." Of course one is entitled to one's opinion no matter how misguided or incorrect, but for someone to express it in such inappropriate, immature terms saddens me. I am, on the other hand heartened by the majority response to great little film, a film that has a growing following among people who appreciate the value of what Tarsem has made here. The people who I have either shown or recommended this film to have, without exception, loved it. And these folks are quite sophisticated when it comes to film, many of them being artists, musicians and writers who have created sophisticated works of their own. So, please don't let the few hateful reviews discourage you from seeing this wonderful movie.

Re-watching Foyle's War episodes on DVD, I am struck with how the series improved in the second season. The mystery elements became more complex--with more potential suspects to be sorted out--and the period detail was rendered more convincingly. The only problem I had with this episode was how quickly the industrialist's son (played by Lawrence Fox) caved in and admitted his guilt. I realize this is part of the convention of these mystery shows, but one would think this arrogant young man would feel he could easily win against a British court, and would, therefore not blurt out a confession. One of the real treats of this episode is seeing lovely Emily Blunt, before her great success in theatrical films ("My Summer of Love," "The Devil Wears Prada"), playing Lucy.

Perhaps I was naive back in the early 80s, but I recall the original V mini-series as having far more substance (and being a lot more fun) than the pilot episode of the new ABC series. Like some other posters, I found the pacing rushed, as if this had been edited down from a 90 minute show at the last moment. The acting ranges from mediocre to awful, with Scott Wolf turning in a Golden Raspberry worthy "performance" as the TV reporter. Though he may have to fight newcomer Logan Hoffman for the that award. The writing is shallow, and many situations seem ludicrous and not at all what would happen should a massive alien invasion occur. I have to agree with the person who wrote that the Visitors would have had their people in key media positions, and would have had no need to recruit the clueless Wolf character. Morena Baccarin is quite a beauty, but the character of Anna is thinly written, and makes one long for Jane Badler's much more forceful Diana, big hair and all. Production values may be better than the original, but the lack of conviction in the writing, performances, and direction drag this version down.

Not my favorite episode of "Mad Men" by a long shot--though I also disliked most of the Don in California subplot in season two. I guess the point was being made in this first season three episode that Don will never be able to resist bedding an attractive woman if the opportunity presents itself, despite his alleged re-dedication to Betty and the kids. I was a bit surprised that Don would engage in a pretense about being FBI accountants, or whatever they claimed to be, with Sal. Sal is on a much lower rung of the corporate ladder at Sterling-Cooper. We have seen Don engage in this behavior with Roger, but then Roger is on his level in the firm. Perhaps the point of Don seeing the bellman in Sal's hotel room was to give Don some leverage over Sal for future use, though why he would need that I don't know. Having been a dedicated fan since the first episode, I am not dissing the series or the writing overall in saying this was not a very strong episode, particularly as it is one that viewers new to the series will use to determine if they will keep watching.

I think prints of this film must have been cheap to purchase for local TV stations. When I was growing up in the fifties, I must have seen this movie--or portions of it--at least once a month. It might have been more engaging when I was seven years old, but there is still something about it that makes it different than other fifties sci-fi. Perhaps it's the pacifist sentiments of the script, when, at the time, most popular entertainment was hyping the bright promise of our atomic future. Then again, it might be Marilyn Nash, who was quite beautiful, and in a modern way, rather than in that fifties bombshell way. Amazing that she went from being discovered by Charlie Chaplin to appearing in this low budget film in the course of a couple years. As to Victor Killian not be credited, his bio indicates he was black listed during the McCarthy years for his leftist political leanings. Perhaps those leftist views are why he does seem to bring a lot sincerity to his character's opposition to the direction of modern society depicted in the film's prologue.

Perhaps with the recent passing of Robert Altman, MGM will finally see fit to release this underrated film on DVD in the USA. I watched it on VHS tape the other night, and this was the first time I had seen the film since its theatrical run in the seventies. While, as someone else pointed out, it may not have been a true widescreen movie, the frame of even a "normal" aspect theatrical film is altered for purposes of formatting it to a TV screen. A US DVD would restore the 185:1 ratio of the original film. Altman was a director who used the whole frame to convey information, and comment on the action. It's a measure of how much this film is respected in Europe, that DVD versions of it are available there. Altman sparked my interest in film back in the seventies, though I admit he made some less than compelling films after that, and before his recent comeback, which began with "The Player." I consider "Thieves Like Us" to be in the top tier of Altman's films, along with "McCabe and Mrs. Miller," "California Split," "Nashville," and "Three Women." I know "Mash" was in some ways groundbreaking, and its success allowed Altman to evolve from being TV series director into an independent filmmaker who could get financing for projects that were less than conventional. But, I still think "Mash" is somewhat overrated. The friend who watched this film with me asked if Coca Cola still contained a narcotic stimulant (derived from cocaine) during the period this film was set? I don't know, but I thought the pervasiveness of Coca Cola drinking, along with the radio always playing in the background, symbolized some mass hypnosis of Americans, whose true circumstances were anything but glamorous, by advertising.

This one season series was inspired by the two part Swedish theatrical film saga of poor farmers coming to America to avoid famine and an authoritarian regime, released in the US as "The Emmigrants," and "The New Land." It was not unusual for TV to cash in on the success of theatrical movies. Some like MASH used the same characters, some like "Alias Smith and Jones" flattered through imitation ("Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"). The TV series, "Tyhe New Land," was somewhat in between. It did not use the characters from the films, but it used the setting and general idea. Also the films it was modeled on did well in the Us as foreign films go, but they were not the popular hits the other two films mentioned were. I remember this series being a far above average drama, and not overly sentimental in the manner of "Little House on thePrairie." I suspect it did not have enough action to interest fans of traditional westerns.

In the 1970s, The Emmigrants and The New Land became a combined surprise success in America. I saw them on back to back nights at a theater in Northern California.They even spawned a short-lived TV series on ABC in 1974, also called The New Land, and featuring a young Kurt Russell. Today, no bottom line fixated TV executive would green light such a drama series. What? No cops, no doctors, no forensic experts? No go. I guess the 70s were a more adventurous time in TV programing. In any case, the series was canceled after one season. I recently read Vilhelm Moberg's novel (I think there were really three novels in this saga), The Last Letter Home, and while Karl-Oskar dies at the end of the novel, he does not suffer quite the humiliation his character suffers in the film. At the end of the film, I seem to recall that he had been forced (by bad health, perhaps?) to leave his farm and live in as an anonymous shuffling old man in some urban setting. In the novel he is still on his farm when he dies. Perhaps Jan Troell, the director of the film was trying to make a point about how the struggles of the pioneers are not remembered or honored by those generations who came after them. it's too bad these films seem to have also slipped from our collective memory.

By the fall of 1963, the granddaddy of Warner Bros. detective shows had grown pretty tired. At the same time, Jack Webb replaced Willian T. Orr (Jack Warner's son-in-law) as head of Warner's TV division. The result of this was a totally revamped 77 Sunset Strip. Only the Stu Bailey (Efrem Zimbalist Jr.) character was retained in the new format, and his office was moved from the Sunset Strip to a vintage office building in Los Angeles. The show kicked off with a five part episode ("Five") brimming with name guest stars and filmed in New York as well as LA (and, one presumes, on the Warner back lot). I was a junior in high school at the time, and can't remember too much of the plot, except that Stu Bailey needed to follow a number of obscure clues to find a key which fit a lock...OK, I don't remember what it would unlock. However, the production values were well above the previous level of this series and most anything on TV at the time. Webb may have directed some or all of the five parts of "Five." Certainly no expense was spared. The other stories after "Five" were also of a greater depth and quality than normally associated with Warner's penny pinching TV production reputation. Despite this, the series was canceled at the end of the season. And I believe Warner Bros. terminated Webb's contract at the same time. Of course, the fall of 1963 was a time when those who still retained an innocent optimism about America's future saw it fade with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Perhaps after that, audiences weren't in the mood for serious drama on a series that had previously been played at least partially for laughs.

The best biographical films show us something of the soul or psyche of the person being depicted. While the surface of The Notorious Bettie Page is certainly slick and visually engaging, there just seems to be nothing beneath that surface. For all the meticulous recreation of the fifties period, the impression I had was of people "just dressing up in costumes," but never portraying the characters beneath. Considering she is given little to work with in terms of character motivation, Gretchen Mol does a decent job. As to the other actors, it's a bad sign when the process of acting becomes so evident that one is more aware of the actor than the character. Disappointing.