john_meyer Reviews

The Future Is Now (1955)

Amazingly Prescient

[10/10 · 9 September 2019]

I have read dozens of books and seen at least that many movies that attempt to envision the future. Most miss the mark wildly. Of those which don't, they usually only get one or two things right, like Jules Verne predicting the submarine, or Star Trek showing the "communicator," long before every person on earth had his/her own cell phone.

The rest of the "predictions" in these movies or books usually completely miss the mark, like the Star Trek transporter, as one example.

The worst record for inaccuracy, however, usually goes to those who attempt to specifically predict the future, rather than just showing some idea as a plot device. I was alive at the time this film was made, and many people were predicting flying cars (like we saw ten years later in "The Jetsons."). Chester Gould kept predicting flying ships that used antigravity to stay in the air.

By contrast, this show accurately predicts videotape, three years before Ampex brought the first successful video recorder to market (the 2" Quadruplex broadcast tape recorder in 1958). It shows home video recording twenty years before it happened with the first Betamax. We see home videophones over thirty years before Skype (and later, Facetime) brought it to the masses.

It correctly predicts the microwave oven which also didn't happen for another twenty years, in the early 1970s.

They even showed a woman in a kitchen getting her recipes from a video card catalog, very much like many people cook using recipes they display on their tablet or phone.

One segment shows what amounts to an early MIDI sequencer, a forerunner of the MOOG synthesizer and Melotron both of which didn't happen until the late 1960s.

Some of the things are just happening now, like their prediction of remote surgeries, where the doctor and patient are separated by thousands of miles.

Even small things, like the prediction that we'd have ice dispensers that would dispense both cubes and crushed ice is something I didn't see in homes until the early 1970s.

Most amazing to me -- and it is worth seeing just for this one segment -- is its statement that "many scientists" believe that the future of energy production is direct energy from the sun via solar cells. This is mind blowing given that this was the heyday for nuclear power, and much of the last part of the short describes all the wonders of the atom. I didn't think the silicon solar cell was invented for another five years, but they show a small prototype generating enough energy to move the needle on a galvanometer.

Some of the prediction are less stunning, but in light of the other things they got right, they add to the film's credibility. These include the prediction that the just-invented transistor would help miniaturize electronics, and that the computer would improve manufacturing precision and productivity.

They didn't get much wrong, although since this was the "atomic age," the movie does go a little overboard in predicting that we'd all embrace things like irradiated food. This did happen, and it is perfectly safe, but people got spooked because of all the scare B-movies about monsters created by radiation from the atomic bomb.

I really enjoyed this short and highly recommend it to anyone wanting to see the rare movie that somehow is able to correctly see and predict the future.

The Wild Bunch (1969)

The Definition of Gratuitous Violence

[1/10 · 7 July 2017]

Gratuitous: Without cause; Unnecessary The opening scene of this Peckinpah orgy of violence is twisted, amoral, and loaded with a massive amount of visual images not needed to tell the story. Every gun shot seems to hit a major artery, accompanied every time by a smacking sound effect to help drive home the point that this person's insides have been disemboweled and scattered around the street.

It doesn't get better.

This movie gets great reviews, but I'll be darned if I can tell why.

The Iron Lady (2011)

Horrible film wastes an amazing Streep performance

[1/10 · 4 December 2016]

This film is told from the perspective of Thatcher when she was a doddering, senile old woman. This would work if used as a starting point, but as the film grinds on, you eventually realize that THAT is all the movie is about: Margaret Thatcher as a senile old woman remembering, in fits and starts, various disjointed and isolated memories of her time as Britain's first female prime minister.

The director and writer made no attempt to provide any insight into how Thatcher actually made any of her decisions. Also missing was any sense of how the events she attempted to shape actually came to be or, in many cases, any description of what those events really were. As one example, the Falklands conflict just pops up in one scene, with no prologue or explanation. Then, in the next scene, without any explanation, she decides to fight a war.

As another example, bombs go off at various points in the movie, without any explanation. Even more inexplicably, after her residence is bombed, there are no subsequent scenes that follow up on this dramatic and troubling scene.

The entire film is like this, with each scene having nothing much to do with anything that has come before. In a word, this film is haphazard.

Having watched this movie, I know nothing more about Margaret Thatcher; nothing whatsoever about the British conservative movement of the 1980s; and nothing about how Thatcher changed Britain and the world.

This is a movie that is about one thing: Meryl Streep's incredible impersonation of Thatcher. It is nothing more than that: there is no plot; no beginning, middle, or end; no characters that anyone could possibly care about; and no explanation whatsoever for anything the main character says or does.

When the credits thankfully finally appeared, I cursed the director and writer of this movie for wasting my time, wasting the talents of a great actress, and for totally failing to tell us anything about one of the most remarkable and important leaders of the 20th century.

Skip this movie: you will miss nothing.

The Remains of the Day (1993)

Great performances, but utterly pointless

[4/10 · 21 June 2016]

As I turned the lights up in our TV room, my wife and I looked at each other and both said, "What was THAT??" In this case "that" was "The Remains of the Day," a story about a butler who has the range of emotions of Chance the Gardener in "Being There," and the personality of drying paint.

Playing this role was a tough assignment, but give credit to Anthony Hopkins for pulling it off. Without his performance, this movie would be a complete stinker. With it, the movie is watchable, but still unsatisfying. The main problem is that the movie doesn't go anywhere. You know, the old "writing 101" business about beginning, middle, and end, and the concept that there ought to be a climax or resolution or something that pulls things together as you get to the final scenes.

Instead, at the end you just scratch your head and wonder why you just spent 2+ hours watching this thing.

If someone recommends this movie to you because your wife likes "Downton Abbey" (which is how we came to rent it), do yourself a favor and instead rent the very similar, and infinitely better film, "The Grand Budapest Hotel." It too has a "majordomo" at its center (a concierge at a hotel instead of a butler in a private residence), but the characters in that film are infinitely more interesting and compelling. That film is also told in flashbacks, but to much better effect. But the key difference is that the resolutions at the end are satisfying in all respects.

What makes it so much better? One word: writing. It is simply much, much better-written.

So, "The Remains of the Day" is way over-rated (nominated for a "best picture" Oscar which it most definitely did not deserve) and, except for Hopkins' performance, deserves no other accolades.

Gone Girl (2014)

Extraordinarily poor script

[2/10 · 30 May 2016]

I have seldom watched a movie where the script writer took as many random shortcuts as those taken in "Gone Girl." I've seen this before when a writer -- either because of laziness, lack of talent, or time pressure -- simply has the character do something which advances the story, but without any foundation or rationale for that action. In "Gone Girl," each scene failed to supply sufficient information or motivation for what each character did next. At the beginning of the movie, this was merely annoying, and I thought perhaps it was being done deliberately in order to provide a simple sketch of the characters' backgrounds and then quickly get into the meat of the movie.

Unfortunately, those "sketches" turned out to be essential to the rest of the movie, and because these scenes were not completely fleshed out, much of what followed rang hollow.

It is a complete mystery to me how Gillian Flynn, the screenplay author, could have been nominated for any awards for this mess, and yet she was. This makes me very suspicious of the awards process.

The script is so bad that, as the movie progressed, I kept thinking perhaps they had filmed the "treatment" (the script outline used to sell the movie idea) rather than an actual, finished script.

By the time the movie stumbled and lurched to the final, totally unsatisfactory conclusion, I found myself almost angry at all the holes in logic and motivation, and the completely inexplicable things each of the two main characters said and did.

I don't mind endings that are unexpected or unusual, but I do mind endings that feel as though the writer copped out because she lacked the creativity to come up with a much more interesting, clever, and logically consistent ending.

This ending was none of those things.

The only reason I gave the film two stars instead of one is that the basic production values are quite good

Ballet 422 (2014)

Incompetent production

[3/10 · 21 May 2016]

Great dancers deserve to be filmed by a competent director and crew. Unfortunately, this did not happen in "Ballet 422."

I have had the good fortune to have seen hundreds of live performances; have watched hundreds more on TV, laserdiscs, and DVD; and have myself filmed over a hundred ballet performances. I therefore know a little about both the art of ballet, and the techniques for recording it.

(P.S., I am also married to a ballet dancer.)

What I have found over the past forty years is that there are no right ways to film a ballet, or a documentary about ballet, but there sure are a lot of wrong ways.

This film seems to be an exercise in finding every possible wrong way to photograph dancers. Here are some examples:

* The camera person seems to have an aversion to feet. Virtually every shot cuts off the dancers' feet and lower torsos, and by tilting the camera to far upwards, gives us vast, pointless shots of the ceiling.

* I don't think I have ever seen an extended dancing scene in which the dancer is shown out of frame, with her arms occasionally appearing in the shot, only to disappear again. I am all for artistic shots, but if you're going to take a chance at doing something different, MAKE IT WORK!! This was just stupid and most definitely did not work.

* Whoever edited this has no sense of continuity. They also don't understand when to begin and end a shot. This movie could be used in an editing class to show exactly what NOT to do when editing.

* The lighting is awful. Yes, I know it is a documentary, and much of it is shot with available light. However, I also know that many of the shots required setup and WERE lit, or at least some attempt was made at lighting.

* The ending shots, where the movies should come together is a completely pointless series of juxtapositions that make absolutely no sense.

I don't think I have ever seen such an incompetent production, and this includes some high school films done by first-year students.

The only reason I give it three stars instead of one is that the solo dancing is absolutely wonderful (although the group dancing is pretty sloppy and lacks coordination).

So, if you do rent this, make sure you have a fast forward that works, and just watch the dancing and skip all the pointless and useless and incompetent footage that adds nothing but bloated, pointless time.

Jody Lee Lipes (the director and main camera person) should not ever again be allowed anywhere near a camera, not even the one in his cellphone.

Flesh and Bone (2015)

What a waste of good dancers and great production values

[2/10 · 8 November 2015]

My wife (a ballet dancer) and I stumbled across this the day it premiered and were excited by the promo. The dancing looked good, and it was clear that the production values were going to be fantastic.

We immediately ordered it "on demand" and watched.

What we saw was not at all what we expected from the promo. While we managed to make it all the way through, it was very rough sailing almost from the beginning.

First of all, the characters are relentlessly depressing. Everyone is nasty, hostile, crude, self-centered, and obnoxious. Yes, people like this exist in all walks of life, but no more in the ballet world than elsewhere. More to the point, it's really tough to watch ANY film without at least one person to root for.

Unfortunately, the dancer at the heart of this drama presents no qualities that make her appealing and worth rooting for. At one point, when it looks like she might fail before she begins, we found ourselves hoping she would exit, opening up the way for someone else. Many of these Showtime and Netflix series often dispatch major characters (like happens all the time in "House of Cards") and we had our fingers crossed.

The next big problem is that the writers and director must have seen some redeeming value in another horrible dance film, "Black Swan." In many ways, this series has similar characters and the same soap opera qualities that made that film, for me, so annoying.

However, unlike Black Swan, where the lead (Natalie Portman) couldn't actually dance, this film showcases some pretty good dancers. Unfortunately, in the one hour of the initial episode, "Bulling Through," we only get to see real dancing, or at least some decent rehearsal footage, for about three minutes.

The acting is all over the place, none of it very good. The worst of the lot is the sexually ambivalent ballet master who seems to have studied at the school of kitsch acting. Every scene of his is overwrought, and he seems to be perpetually on the verge of parody.

Finally, the initial episode is littered with some of the most disgusting, pointless sex scenes I have ever seen. They are ugly, don't advance the plot, and only serve to contribute to the depressing, squalid atmosphere that permeates this production.

It is actually too bad that the sex scenes are so vulgar because if they'd been alluring, I could have at least recommended it as a "guilty pleasure," as Siskell & Ebert used to call such films.

Sadly, there is nothing to recommend this film, and I only give it two stars instead of one, because the production values (lighting, camera work, editing, and the rare dance sequences) are actually quite good.

My Uncle Antoine (1971)

Unfulfilling and unresolved

[2/10 · 20 August 2013]

This film had so much promise, and has had so many recommendations. My hopes were high.

Those hopes were completely dashed, however, as I sat through this meandering tale of the hard life in Canada many decades ago. There are half a dozen minor plots held loosely together by a mischievous boy who steals communion wine, chases after his foster sister, and observes and interacts with the people around him. This is all set against a backdrop of a Canadian mining town which lives in the shadow of a large mine run by a heartless owner.

I can understand why some people are captivated by the style, tone, and look of the film, but ultimately, for heaven's sake, there must be a plot: a beginning, a middle, and an end, with some sort of development and some sort of resolution.

Instead, just when you least expect it, the film ends! It was as if the film's producer simply ran out of money and shut down the set. I've actually attended films where they couldn't play the last reel, and this felt exactly like that. This was made even more annoying for me because I was made to sit through agonizingly long scenes of almost nothing, watching characters do almost nothing, all with the expectation that there would be some sort of payoff. Yes, I understand this is part of the character development, but where is the meaning or the point in all of it?

I contrast this to another slow-moving foreign film about a tough life full of constant threats, "Lives of Others." That film also has many scenes of everyday life, with people doing ordinary things, but oh my, what a marvelous and captivating ending they constructed, an ending which completely and totally brought together all of the characters and their individual story lines. In the end, that movie was about something. This movie was about absolutely nothing.

So, for me, this film is entirely unsatisfying. I would have given it one star, but I did admire the actors' portrayals of their characters.

Goodfellas (1990)

Tedious cartoon characterizations

[2/10 · 2 June 2013]

Many people think Scorsese is a great director because he is a skilled craftsman who produces a clear realization of his own weirdly fractured vision. Given the reverence with which some people treat his work, any criticism may be viewed as sacrilege.

However, this film is filled with wooden, cartoon characterizations of real people. They do very ugly things to each other, but without any understanding of their motivations.

The movie drags on far too long thanks to countless scenes that should have been shortened or cut (e.g., the endlessly long prison kitchen scene). The transitions between different phases of the movie are abrupt and without explanation. For instance, the transition to drug addiction and trafficking comes out of nowhere when the main character pulls pills out of his pocket and swallows them on his way to jail in a limousine. No drug use is shown or even hinted at prior to that scene.

While the movie certainly progresses over time, and there is definitely plot development, the cardboard characters don't really change, and every scene seems like a repeat of something we just saw.

Unlike "The Godfather," to which this film is sometimes compared because they both depict the "inner workings" of the East Coast Mafia, there is no deeper insight into any part of the human condition, and only the shallowest revelations about why the Mafia even exists. The only thing we are given -- explained in clumsy narration at the end of the movie -- is that all the participants are drawn to each other because they enjoy a sense of belonging: of being "good fellas." While the irony between that explanation and the extended depiction of these beautifully bonded people eating their own is certainly acknowledged, in the end none of it really makes sense, and we are reminded of that too-frequently quoted Shakespeare line:

It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury Signifying nothing

Macbeth was clearly talking about Goodfellas.

The Spirit of Stanford (1942)

Wonderful historical footage buried inside a pretty bad movie

[5/10 · 18 March 2013]

The movie is lame, and the acting is strictly amateur. However, the stock footage of Stanford is wonderful, and the actual game footage is excellent, and for fans of old football, priceless.

There are some interesting musical numbers which are actually not that bad, in their own way.

It is also amusing to briefly see Lloyd Bridges in one of his first screen appearances. He has bit parts in at least two scenes. He had a long career, and fathered two well-known actors, Jeff & Beau.

If I were reviewing the movie as an entertainment vehicle, I'd give it a three-star rating, but because of the Stanford shots and actual football scenes, I rate it higher.

BTW, the "Stanford Stadium" shots are actually the Rose Bowl, I think.

Black Swan (2010)

Well-made pretension

[1/10 · 24 May 2011]

This is one of the worst movies I have seen in many years. I know that it has been hailed by many as daring and original and artistic. However, in reality it is monotonous, dreary, and populated by single-dimensional caricatures who play the same part in every scene.

Portman won the Oscar® for her performance, and much was made of her dancing, both the fact that she trained for more than a year and also that her stunt double didn't get any credit. Well, as someone who has spent forty years going to the ballet, and as someone married to a ballet dancer, I can state that this movie has some of the worst ballet dancing ever recorded in a movie.

Finally, all the metaphors in this failed movie are trite, and some quite laughable. For instance, the appearance of actual feathers, at least in the mind of the crazed black swan, is one of the oldest lines in reviews of "Swan Lake:" "She was so convincing you could actually see the feathers" is a typical review line that I've read many times over the years.

In this case, I didn't need to see the feathers, and I didn't need to see the movie.

If you want to see a great ballet movie about a ballerina going mad as art and reality follow parallel paths, rent the timeless classic "The Red Shoes." That too won awards, but it was a great movie, and the dancing is mesmerizing.

This effort is just well-made pretension.

Love with the Proper Stranger (1963)

"Daring" movies aren't always great

[3/10 · 22 June 2010]

I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, so I know first-hand what movies were like back then. The subject matter for this movie and how it is treated were definitely pushing the envelope of what the studios would allow, and what audiences were ready to see at that time. Often, however, films that are daring can't quite get beyond the self-congratulatory "look at us and how daring we are being" and actually take us somewhere we haven't been before or tell an original story.

The overall structure of the movie is fine, but it fails on two main points. First, at no time are we given any reason to see why the two characters are attracted to each other. While they are both gorgeous people to look at, and both well-versed in the 1950s morality that says you should do "the right thing," there is no quality, no dialog, and little action that would make one character attracted to the other. It is true that Steve McQueen's character does some amazingly kind and considerate things, but I cannot think of one thing Natalie Woods' character does that would make anyone attracted to her as a person. He rescues her, helps her, tries to understand her, defends her, and gets in a fight for her, but she never does one thing to help him, elevate him, intrigue him, or motivate him. Other than her amazing looks, we are given no reason why McQueen would fall in love with this perfect stranger.

The second and bigger failing is the direction. The screenwriter provides very sparse dialog, and most scenes find the actors posing, glancing, leaning, sitting, standing, moving, and generally fidgeting their way through scenes, as if random motion is going to convey some inner feelings. This is obviously entirely the work of the director. Emotions seem to turn on and off with almost every cut, and at times it is impossible to tell what the heck is going on.

This random motion turns to random Emotion in the final scene of the movie, something I guess I should have expected, but something which does not logically follow anything that comes before it, especially the immediately preceding scenes.

I have seldom seen a movie with a more thoroughly botched ending.

And finally, while others see chemistry between McQueen and Woods, I saw absolutely nothing. To me, chemistry is what we saw many years later between McQueen and Faye Dunaway in the original "Thomas Crown Affair." That was pure electricity. By contrast, this is barely a spark.

The Bodyguard (1992)

Without good writing, good acting means nothing

[2/10 · 25 February 2008]

TCM was showing this as part of their "Oscar" month. I ended up staying up late to watch it.

Wow, what a waste of time! The problem isn't KC or WH or their chemistry (or lack thereof), but the idiotic plot that just doesn't make any sense. I could fill pages with examples, but the one that made me really sorry that I had sacrificed my beauty sleep to watch this was when Costner's character dives into a freezing lake to knock a kid out of a boat, but for no apparent reason other than he just figure out that the bad guy is nearby. After safely out of the water, the boat stops in the middle of the lake and blows up. Since neither Costner or Houston's characters had been in the boat or shown any interest in the boat, the whole idea that someone would try to kill them by blowing it up made absolutely no sense at all.

And what about the ridiculous attempt at romance, which is obviously the whole point of the film? There is not one credible scene that explains either character's attraction for the other. None. So, the reason for no chemistry between the two is that the idiot who wrote this didn't provide any dialog or staging to provide them with any motivation.

So, my advice is to buy a Whitney Houston album so you can hear her fabulous voice without interference from all the foley noise, and then rent "No Way Out," which provides all sorts of motivation for the romance and sex scenes with an equally serious, but far more plausible performance from Costner.

The Boondock Saints (1999)

Beyond awful

[1/10 · 15 April 2007]

This movie defines the phrase "no socially redeeming value." It is vulgar and violent without a purpose. The killing is relentless and endless, with frame after frame of gratuitous, slow motion violence, some of it even repeated in case you didn't get enough of it the first time.

Violent movies can still make valid points and be worthwhile endeavors, as Kubrick and others have shown. However, the difference between Kubrick's violent movies and this one is the same as the difference between the nude paintings hanging in the Louvre, and the photos in Hustler magazine.

Spend your time doing something else.

John Doe (2002–2003)

Remarkably well done

[10/10 · 10 April 2007]

What makes a good TV series? Strong characters that you care about; plot development that spans episodes; good writing; excellent production values.

This series has it all.

Given all the lame ideas that are recycled from TV shows in order to make movies, it is amazing that this one hasn't been picked up and made this television show into a movie. If they ever do, they would be hard-pressed to come up with a better cast, the most outstanding of which is Jayne Brook as detective Jamie Avery. The combination of her performance and the excellent writing make this character real, believable, and intelligent.

I picked up a copy of the entire season from someone that had taped it, and am almost at the end, which I already know does not resolve all the open plot issues. As others have said, we'd sure like to have more, and would pay real money to see "the final episode."

The Departed (2006)

How could this even be nominated for best picture?

[1/10 · 9 April 2007]

This is a haphazard movie, with violence substituting for acting, and profanity taking the place of real writing. The editing is slipshod, to the point of making parts of the movie incomprehensible.

If you like over-the-top violent thug movies, don't waste your time on this poor excuse for movie making and instead rent "Snatch." You'll get your daily dose of violence and profanity there as well, but done with a much firmer hand on the controls.

The corruption of the motion picture academy has been obvious for the past decade, with nominations and winners increasingly determined by factors outside the film's actual merits.

An Evening at the Moulin Rouge (1981 TV Special)

A GEM from the HBO "Golden Era"

[10/10 · 15 August 2006]

While HBO is now known for producing "The Sopranos" and other episodic TV shows, in its early days it produced a wide range of wonderful music, comedy, and variety concerts. This one-hour show captures a Las Vegas-style show, but of the French variety, at the famed Moulin Rouge nightclub in Paris. George Hamilton provides a suave, debonair presence (something that he was clearly born to do), introducing each act from a location just outside the women's dressing room, where mostly-naked ladies rush by trying to get changed for the next act.

And there are some interesting acts.

In addition to several dancing showgirl numbers, there are many other wonderful performances:

The Dancing Devilles. Best described as a Russian street dancing group, using balls on the end of strings instead of trashcans to provide the percussion for their dance;

Ernest Montego. An excellent juggler, who presages many Cirque de Soleil performances that were still many years in the future when this was filmed;

Watusi. Josephine Baker, updated to 1981.

Babloo Monique. Not sure of the spelling, but this guy was able to create shadow images with his hands by putting them in front of a slide projector (just like we all used to do when our parents would show slides or movies). Pretty amazing to see Nixon, Reagan, Stalin, Churchill, and many other famous world leaders suddenly appear.

Dolphin Act. A live dolphin in a tank on stage cleverly disrobes one of the dancers. Yes, dolphins are smart.

The Can-Can. And of course, the finale has to be the Can-Can, performed exactly as it has always been done.

I just discovered the tape I made when this was broadcast by HBO all those years ago, just after I got my first VCR, and first subscribed to cable. I sure wish HBO would issue all those wonderful concerts on DVD from that early era. They briefly started to do this in the early 1990s, when laserdiscs first arrived, and I have the Fleetwood Mac Mirage concert and the Olivia Newton-John Weber Utah concert on laserdisc. They never did that with this or many other similar fun performances. If anyone is listening out there from HBO, make some money from those old properties, and start a "classic HBO" series!!

Two Weeks Notice (2002)

Who is Marc Lawrence, and why are his movies so bad?

[2/10 · 9 August 2004]

How can you take two of the best romantic comedy actors of this generation, and make a bad romantic comedy?

Answer: Hire Marc Lawrence to write and direct the project.

The dialog of this movie is bad beyond belief, and the direction is completely clueless. Both main characters say things and do things without any connection to what was said or done in earlier scenes. If this were the Marx Brothers, such abrupt and jarring breaks in character or plot would be pleasurable mayhem, but in the hands of this blundering writer/director/idiot, everything falls flat.

I note that Marc Lawrence also gets writing credit for two very good comedies of similar style, "Miss Congeniality" and the Steve Martin version of "Out-of-Towners." However, on closer inspection, "Miss Congeniality" was written by a team of three writers, of which he was one, and the "Out-of-Towners" was based on a Neil Simon play, and so the original material was written by a master of the genre.

The only other recent movie for which this loser gets full writing credit is "Forces of Nature," a similar exercise in random plot "development."

What is worrisome (or would be if I were the studio head) is that the sole writing credit for the upcoming "Miss Congeniality" sequel is Marc Lawrence. Why would anyone give this guy the keys to the car after two train wrecks?

The Other (1972)

Thriller in Daylight

[11 November 2002]

I saw this in the theater during its initial release in 1972, but haven't seen it since. The one thing that has stayed with me all these years is that every scene was shot either outdoors, or with bright lights. This goes counter to every movie of this genre that I've ever watched. It takes quite a movie craftsperson to make bright blue skies seem sinister.

Wag the Dog (1997)

More relevant to Bush than to Clinton

[10/10 · 16 August 2002]

My reaction to this black comedy reminds me of how I felt when I first saw "Dr. Strangelove" back in 1964. That movie was terribly funny, even as Slim Pickens did the atomic mid-air rodeo ride that was destined to start World War III. Yet, I was chilled by the truth in the caricatures up there on the screen parodying our real leaders. In a similar manner, "Wag the Dog" offers up the same kind of black comedy satire, with great insight into how the modern, amoral, political PR mind works.

Much was made at the time the movie debuted about its clairvoyance in depicting a president who needs to distract the country from his sexual dalliances. However, while that fact provides the motivation for the movie, it really isn't central to its theme. The problem just as well could have been illegal bribes, or any other scandal. The real guts of the film are right there in the title (which is explained for us in detail in the opening credits, in case we didn't get it): The minions are running the show, and the politicians are just bit players in the resulting drama (the President's face never even appears in the movie!). Viewed from today's perspective (2002), this movie is far more relevant than when it first appeared because it understands the politics of terrorism, suitcase bombs, the increased role of the CIA and, at the end, the need to go back to Albania (nee Iraq) and finish up the job. It is definitely a far more relevant film to view today than it was in 1997.

Airplane! (1980)

More laughs per minute than any movie ever made

[10/10 · 20 May 2002]

Airplane! may not be everyone's cup of tea. It's humor is lowbrow, its punch lines predictable, its premise silly. Yet, unless you are a complete stuffed shirt, or unless you take yourself way too seriously, you won't be able to stop smiling at the wonderful, non-stop silliness, and complete lack of good taste.

I never laughed out loud as much as I did when I first saw this movie back in 1980. I'm smiling right now, just thinking about it. Surely this is the mark of a great movie ... and stop calling me Shirley!

Airplane! (1980)

More laughs per minute than any movie ever made

[10/10 · 20 May 2002]

Airplane! may not be everyone's cup of tea. It's humor is lowbrow, its punch lines predictable, its premise silly. Yet, unless you are a complete stuffed shirt, or unless you take yourself way too seriously, you won't be able to start smiling at the wonderful, non-stop silliness, and complete lack of good taste.

I never laughed out loud as much as I did when I first saw this movie back in 1980. I'm smiling right now, just thinking about it. Surely this is the mark of a movie ... and stop calling me Shirley!

What's Up, Doc? (1972)

The very definition of Classic Comedy

[10/10 · 13 May 2002]

What makes you laugh? A pie in the face? A naughty reference to sex? Something gross? Something totally absurd?

Modern comedy -- TV and movies of the past thirty years -- is composed mostly of these comic devices, strung together in a random fashion between the opening and closing credits. In small doses, random skits and quick punch lines can be funny. Very funny. I love the absurd situations in Monty Python skits, and can't stop laughing watching Airplane! with each frame chock full of gross, vulgar, but always funny sight gags. However, what even these examples lack is a funny story. A real story with real people (well, almost real -- this is a comedy after all).

Only in a movie with a story can the payoffs (i.e., the laughs) be so big, because only in a movie with a story can the setups be crafted over such a long time.

"What's Up Doc?" is a truly great comedy, with a great sense of rhythm, perfectly executed direction, and fantastic comic timing from everyone involved, even the usually clueless Ryan O'Neal. The numerous big setpieces in this film will stay with you forever, especially the San Francisco chase scene with its Chinese Dragon and doomed pane of glass. But what sets this movie apart is the story. It is a story that builds laughs, one at a time, from the back of a taxi cab in San Francisco, to the final scene in the back of an airplane leaving the city.

It you haven't seen this, don't rent it, buy it. If you already own it, go watch it again. That's what I'm going to do.

Ordinary People (1980)

Mary Tyler Moore is devastatingly great

[5 March 2002]

Mary Tyler Moore won the Golden Globe, but not the Oscar for this performance. I assume she didn't win because she was a TV, not a movie actress. Whatever the reason, it is a shame she didn't win, not just because her performance deserved the award, but because it might have encouraged her, as well as "Hollywood" to let her continue to express herself in other dramatic roles.

I guarantee you will remember her character for a long, long time.

What's Up, Doc? (1972)

Classy, classic comedy

[10/10 · 5 March 2002]

Did you know that a movie can be funny without using four-letter words, without exploring every body function, and without the tiresome sitcom set-em-up, put-em-down dialog? Yes, a movie can be funny -- far funnier, in fact -- without any of this. All it needs is a great premise, sharp dialog, great acting, wonderful direction, and some of the best physical "business" that you'll ever see.

This movie has all of this, and more. I don't know why it only ranks 61st on AFI's all time funny list. It is certainly one of the five funniest movie I've ever seen.

Now, I'll admit to being way north of forty years old. So, is this a movie only for the "older set"? Well, my daughter first saw this movie when she was seven, and she laughed continuously all the way through it. She's now almost fifteen, has seen the movie over a dozen times, and still laughs continuously all the way through it (so do I).

So, whether you are seven, seventeen, or seventy, see this movie and enjoy a really fun evening.