gayspiritwarrior Reviews

Salem's Lot (2004)

Scarier than its reputation

[7/10 · 9 November 2017]

I don't understand the complaint that it's not scary. I just watched it as an uninterrupted three-hour movie, and I found it gripping, atmospheric and scary the whole way through. I never saw it on TV, so I have a guess why people may not have found it scary there: commercials. If it was shown in two parts then each part was 1½ hours stretched out by 30 minutes of commercials to fill a 2-hour block, and there was at least a 24-hour break between halves. With that much interruption and delay it couldn't help but be watered-down. The directing, acting, and visuals were all first-rate. I'll recommend it enthusiastically to my friends.

Stonewall (2015)

It's not what people want it to be.

[7/10 · 27 September 2015]

Roland Emmerich's biggest mistake was calling the movie "Stonewall" and marketing it as if it were the actual story of the rebellion. It gave people the wrong expectation. It's not a movie about Stonewall. It's a movie about a Midwestern gay man whose story takes place on Christopher street at the time of the riots. It's also in part the story of the first person he meets in New York, played by Jonny Beauchamp, who steals the movie. It's basically a very oddball romance and coming-out story. People wanted an accurate historical epic about the importance of the riots, and the movie isn't that and was never meant to be.

For what it really is, it's a very good movie. Like most "historical" movies there are inaccuracies. The worst distortion is giving Danny the "first brick." That's upset a lot of people, but in the dramatic structure of the movie it's as much about Danny's becoming himself--a gay man throwing away his shame--as it is about the situation he finds himself in. The police are depicted as "bad" in the black-and-white morality of an old-fashioned hero-versus-villain Saturday morning serial. But beyond those inaccuracies and the impossibility of recreating Christopher Street as it was (which seems to be especially upsetting to some New York viewers), the movie is as faithful to its surrounding event as any Shakespeare history play to its, including sympathetic depictions of a very diverse neighborhood of LGBT types.

As a long-time gay activist, I liked the movie a great deal. It feels real as I remember things to have been 46 years ago. I felt a genuine emotional rush during and after the riot. The movie ends with typical historical clean-ups, telling us what became of the real people, like Marsha P Johnson and others who appear in the movie, and mentioning the additional nights of rioting and how they went on to be regarded in LGBT history.

For me the saddest thing about this film is the divisions it's exposed among various components of the LGBT community. This history belongs to all of us, black, brown, white, gay, lesbian, transgender, drag queen, troll, twink, and so on; if we can't honor it in all of our variations, no one else will either. Go to see it as a good story well told, not as a factual documentary. I write this knowing some of you won't be able to, some of you won't want to, and some of you won't believe me. I wish there were something I could do about that, but there isn't.

The Last Lovecraft: Relic of Cthulhu (2009)

Enjoyable horror comic book...

[7/10 · 1 April 2011]

The people who say this isn't based on Lovecraft or the Cthulhu mythos are way off base, and they miss the point of this romp. Without H.P. Lovecraft's writing, this movie wouldn't exist. It isn't meant to be a "Lovecraft movie" or to be taken seriously. It's precisely what its writer and co-star intended it to be, a cinematic comic book and a tribute to Lovecraft as the father of modern horror and the progenitor of much of what we know as horror comics, both serious and humorous. The performers are all at least adequate, and the three leads are charming, portraying Regular Guys and a stereotyped comic book nerd with tongues firmly in cheek. It's obvious everyone who had anything to do with The Last Lovecraft: Relic of Cthulhu had a ball, and so will you, unless you have no sense of fun at all.

Love! Valour! Compassion! (1997)

Don't judge a movie by its source

[9/10 · 10 October 2009]

The writer of the current featured review, jotix100, thinks this movie "doesn't work." I beg to differ. What Love! Valour! Compassion! was onstage doesn't matter to this movie. The movie isn't being judged as a play. Those of us who never saw the play onstage could not care less how good or bad it was there. This movie does work. It's everything good jotix100 mentions and what he finds deficient from the play has no bearing, unless what you like to do is compare two good things just to discover which is the weakest. Enjoy this movie for the witty dialogue, the genuine rapport between all the performers, the beautiful setting and the magnificent John Glover. Whatever isn't there on the screen is irrelevant.

Cthulhu (2007)

Rhetorical questions.

[6/10 · 6 April 2009]

In all the discussions and comments about all the previous movies based on Lovecraft stories and ideas, I've never seen anyone raise the topic of sexuality. It's not as if there's never any love interest added to these movies. Some of them have very clear boy/girl elements grafted to them; yet nobody's ever objected in more than an offhand way.

What is it about this particular movie that's drawn such heated discussion of a previously neglected aspect? Some people are saying sexuality "of any kind" is completely inappropriate to a Lovecraftian movie. Others--I'm tempted to say the more honest ones--are just upset about the filmmakers daring to introduce a gay character into Lovecraft's world.

In most of his stories, the *gender* of the protagonist isn't even disclosed. At least one TV adaptation--of "Cool Air"--made the protagonist a woman, which created a tension between her and the hidden doctor that's missing from the original story. Was that wrong?

What's really behind this new aspect to Lovecraft film criticism?

The Plow That Broke the Plains (1936)

Document of history

[10/10 · 18 March 2009]

Viewers who insist on judging past attitudes by today's standards will hate or dismiss this film (see several examples.) Whether it was a propaganda piece or an educational one when it was made, it is now one of the most immediate visual records we have of the dust bowl and the migration that resulted from it, a monumental achievement which can never be duplicated, and one which influenced both American music and documentary film-making in an essential way. For many years it was shown in U.S. Schools, which is where I first saw it about 55 years ago, in the early 1950s with their emphasis on bread-basket America and the promise of farming technology. With a proper introduction by teachers, even the jingoistic narration could be made useful. As a record of where our country has been, it's an invaluable, irreplaceable document.

The Dark Past (1948)

Remake better than the "original"

[6/10 · 7 January 2009]

This little film is word-for-word, almost shot-for-shot the same as the earlier "Blind Alley" and, I'm sure, the play that film was based on. The few differences all work in this later film's favor. Lee J. Cobb is better as the psychologist than Ralph Bellamy, and William Holden is more subtle if less comfortable in the tough-guy shoes than Chester Morris. Both films are stagey in the extreme, the interest coming mostly from the two main performers, (particularly Lee J. Cobb, who dominates his scenes,) and the better direction of Rudolf Maté. TNT is showing both films this afternoon, in order of their filming. Both are triumphs of craft over weak material.

The Richard Boone Show (1963–1964)

Time plays havoc with memory...

[9/10 · 25 December 2006]

This show is fondly remembered by those of us who saw it, but not as precisely as might be. One reviewer remembers John McIntyre on it, which he was not, and speaks of the various roles of "Bobby Benson," by which I think he means Robert Blake, as there's no Bobby Benson in the cast list. Another person remembers it being an alternative to "The Fugitive," but my family and I saw every episode of both of those shows, so they couldn't have been on opposite each other. Nevertheless, this was as great a show as everyone says. The rotating cast members distinguished themselves before, during and especially afterward in many memorable roles on stage, screen, television, radio and recording. Boone himself, alas, had little chance to fulfill the versatility he showed in the various plays, being mostly typecast in villain roles for the rest of his career. The Richard Boone Show itself quickly joined the list of excellent TV programs that simply never caught the fancy of the general audience. There's never been another show like it.

Poster Boy (2004)

Surfaces are all some people see...

[9/10 · 13 December 2006]

Movies that are more about the inner lives, emotions and growth of the characters than they are about the situations depicted frequently have a hard time with critics and audiences. So it seems to be with this film, which is deeper than most of the reviewers seem able to see.

The one facet of this production that most reviewers complain about is the writing. Well, I'm here to say that the writing is intelligent and subtle and just this side of brilliant. The people in Poster Boy aren't the one-dimensional, good or bad, smart or silly, honest or conniving characters they might have been. They're multifaceted, exposed in greater detail as the film goes on, and they all take emotional journeys, becoming larger and different, if still humanly flawed, from who they were at the start. Even the politician/father is more complex than we think at first; although perhaps predictably, because of the career he's chosen, he moves the least of the major characters.

Henry Kray is embittered by the politicization of his life, yet we see him beginning to hope against his experience that the feelings Anthony shows him might possibly be real. Anthony, for his part, is in it at first for the political effect he can create by outing Henry, but he begins to see there's more to Henry than just the politician's son, and that the cause he was using Henry for is more complicated than he thought. The politician's wife shakes off her complacent acceptance of her role as scenic sidekick to the Senator. Izzie opens up more than she thought possible at first==Parker's knock at the gym door at the end, and Izzie's opening that door is the closest the movie comes to a conventional romance, but is just as much a metaphor for moving on after finally accepting what she's lost.

Some people have expressed surprise or disappointment that Henry and Anthony didn't end up together; but this isn't primarily a romance. It's a story of realistic, imperfect people who touch each other's lives and take what they've experienced into their futures.

This is one of the most intelligent movies of its kind this writer has ever seen, and sadly underestimated by most of its audience. 9 out of 10.

100 Years at the Movies (1994 TV Short)

Movie heaven

[10/10 · 11 February 2006]

No great theories to spin here, or trends to notice, or criticisms to unload. Quite simply, this is the most carefully chosen, best-edited, most entertaining montage/tribute to the cinema ever put together. Covering, as it says, the whole first century of the cinema, it consists entirely of clips from a cavalcade of box-office favorites and historically-significant films, edited in roughly chronological order, accompanied by equally-well chosen scores. Some excerpts are as short as two or three seconds, sometimes just a word or a gesture from a film, sometimes a famous line, sometimes a look on a beloved movie star's face, but always one of those indelible moments, those "pieces of time," as Jimmy Stewart called them, that are the shared heritage of everyone who loves movies.

The Millionaire (1955–1960)

Not random gifts...

[18 October 2005]

Nobody seems to remember that it wasn't actually random people to whom the million dollars was given. At the beginning of each show Tipton would send for his secretary, Michael Anthony. Tipton would say something pertaining to the person he'd decided to give the gift to, and say "Here's another Millionaire." He always knew some reason why the person needed the money or the lesson the money might teach. Anthony would fold the check into his portfolio and head out to deliver it. One episode I still remember had the money going to the young daughter of a contentious couple who needed the money. They found the million dollars notation in her bankbook and told her she shouldn't pretend and write things in the book. At the end of the show they hadn't yet discovered the money was real. It was a good show, fondly remembered.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)

Two great actors, one role

[9/10 · 2 July 2005]

A close look at the credits for both films will show that the 1941 "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is more than merely a remake of the 1931 version. The screenplay of the later film was literally based on that of the earlier, and there are scene-by-scene and, in places, word-for-word duplications. Both are excellent, with my own preference going to the 1941 and Spencer Tracy. His performance is amazing, and so subtle that it's frequently dismissed as inferior work. To the contrary, it's every bit worthy of an early graduate of the Actors Studio. Spoilers follow.

The highlight of the film is the astonishing scene when Jekyll first changes involuntarily into Hyde. He's walking the sidewalk in the fog, whistling a Strauss waltz he earlier danced with his fiancée, played well in a throwaway role by Lana Turner. Without meaning to his whistling changes to the polka sung by barmaid Ingrid Bergman, whose performance is nearly a match to Tracy's. He stops, a confused look on his face, then walks on whistling the waltz. Again it changes to the polka, and he stops again, wiping his brow, confusion again on his face. Now unsure, he starts to walk again, and can only whistle the first notes of the polka. He stumbles to a park bench and changes into Hyde. Hyde looks about and then hurries over to the barmaid's flat, where as Jekyll he's just told her Hyde will never come again. Ivy is celebrating with champagne. In a brilliant mirror-shot we see her look of horror as the door opens and Hyde enters. The rest of the scene is simply unforgettable, between the deranged Hyde and the terrified Ivy, realizing her fate is at hand.

There are nice directorial touches in both films, and both tell the story very well. Many will prefer the more straightforward, showier 1931 version. For myself the 1941 is supreme, with Tracy delivering one of the all-time great screen acting performances. 9/10.

The Wind (1928)

Emotion made visible.

[8/10 · 3 April 2005]

This is quite simply one of the handful of greatest achievements in the history of visual storytelling. There are images as fresh, as inventive as any you will ever see. You may find some of Gish's emoting a little over the top, but immediately there follow moments when she is as subtle and complex as anyone who came after her. She did, after all, invent screen acting as we now know it. One may wish for the original ending Gish and Sjostrom wanted; but the final images as re-shot were still created by artists at the height of their respective powers, and are memorable in their own right. The desert wind lives and howls in this film, as it has done only rarely in films by John Ford and David Lean. Anyone who doubts that cinema is art has never seen The Wind.

Glen and Randa (1971)

Post-holocaust innocence.

[7/10 · 1 July 2004]

I find it interesting that nobody has yet mentioned how much casual nudity there is in this film. It's what got the film its "X" rating, even though there's no overt sexuality connected to it. It's more of a device to underline the innocence of Glen and Randa and their nomadic life. Nothing in the film would get it more than an "R" today. There are no special effects as such, just vistas of nature and of the ruined technology from which the survivors glean their living. The young actors are very appealing, and there's a quiet inevitability to the story's unfolding. I wish this were available on DVD, but given that there's no studio money behind it, this is unfortunately unlikely. This little film has stayed with me for many years since the release. It's too bad so few people know about it; it deserved a better fate.

King Solomon's Mines (2004)

Lengthy but well done adventure

[7/10 · 13 June 2004]

This is a sprawling (4 hours) remake of the Rider Haggard story, with the usual added female and an extraneous subplot with Russian soldiers seeking a "Stone of Power" buried along with the treasure of King Solomon. It's very well shot, giving a vivid sense of the wide open spaces of Africa, and very well acted. Patrick Swayze is an excellent Alan Quatermain, and Allison Doody is attractive as Elizabeth Maitland, who hires Quatermain to help rescue her father. Sidede Onyulo as Umbopa, Gavin Hood as McNabb and the leader of the Russian soldiers (not named in IMDb's listing) are also memorable. For all that Hollywood can't leave a good story alone when they adapt it, this one is well told and, except that it's too long, I enjoyed it. 6/10.

The West Wing (1999–2006)

IT'S A TELEVISION SHOW!!!

[9/10 · 25 September 2003]

Again and again I see people comment on the "realism" or lack thereof in this show. It's irrelevant. This is a work of dramatic fiction, however much it might base on real ideas. It's a drama about the workings of a Presidential office and the staff that runs it. As such, week after week, it's consistently one of the finest drama series ever to grace the TV airways. If you let your political viewpoint or your demand for realism get in the way of enjoying it, so much the worse for you. The academy has honored it repeatedly because it does what a good TV show is supposed to do; it entertains, it involves us with colorful, fully-drawn characters, and sometimes, wonder of wonders, it even makes us think. It's not real, people. It's a television show. Long may it continue!

Shadows and Fog (1991)

Not for everyone, but what is???

[10/10 · 10 May 2003]

It's amusing to see people getting so upset at not "getting" a film others call great that they'll denigrate not only the film, but the people who made it and anyone who does like it. There seems to be a lot of that with Woody Allen. Stand-up comics aren't supposed to make great films. Fortunately, Woody doesn't care what people think he's "supposed" to do.

And make no mistake, "Shadows and Fog" is a great film. Not merely an homage to the German expressionists, it abounds in the philosophies Woody has discussed in all his films: god, love, death, sanity and craziness, honesty, cruelty, tyranny, humanity. The characters in this, one of the best of his screenplays, are all individuals, all facets of Woody's immense understanding of the common man. The scene in the brothel is stunning in its casual ordinariness. Kleinman (translation, "little man,") is all of us, in the shadow and fog of confusing times. Consider the line he delivers just before he blows pepper in the crowd's face: "I never did anything to deserve getting in trouble." The irony here is that much of the fascism that overtook Europe came because too many good people did nothing. The lesson was as significant when Woody made the film as during the time depicted, and just as significant today. A great film, 10/10.

The Wind and the Lion (1975)

A movie movie...

[8/10 · 7 May 2003]

One of the earlier reviews of this movie ends with "Only for big fans of the lead actors or fans of exotic Romance/Adventure Holywood movies...," as if those weren't reason enough to love it! Anyone who, after seeing this movie, complains about Connery's accent, or the lack of historical verisimilitude, or the realism of the political motivations, or any other extra-movie concerns, simply doesn't love movies. See it and be awed by the star-power of the two leads, the exotic, romantic, photography and music, and the bold adventure of a truly escapist film. This is proof that Hollywood can "make 'em like they used to" when it really wants to. A solid 8/10.

Rio Grande (1950)

The beginning of a beautiful friendship.

[17 April 2003]

This film pales in comparison only to the very greatest achievements of American cinema. The least-known of the "Cavalry trilogy," it nevertheless has moments equal to the best John Ford ever put on screen, belying the haste with which it was made. It has one of John Wayne's finest, most subtle performances, the bewitching chemistry of Wayne and the beautiful Maureen O'Hara in their first screen pairing, classic Ford action sequences, and a compelling story with the emphasis on family, friendship and loyalty that was always Ford's hallmark. Ben Johnson, Chill Wills, the then-ubiquitous J. Carroll Naish, and others of Ford's "stock company" make impressive appearances. The scene between Wayne and O'Hara, when she is being serenaded, is quite simply one of the most affecting and effective depictions of frustrated desire in movie history.

The Last of Sheila (1973)

Compelling and engrossing...

[3 August 2002]

I'm another who first saw this movie at a drive-in. My friend and I were so taken with it that we wanted to follow the unraveling of the mystery again, knowing the outcome, so we stayed and saw it a second time. The plotting is expert, the portrayals all wonderfully complete and with a sense that the actors were enjoying the making just as much as they knew the audience would enjoy the watching. If you yearn for travel, adventure and mystery, this movie was tailor-made for you!

An Affair to Remember (1957)

A Labor of Love...

[10 September 2001]

Leo McCarey ("Going My Way," "The Awful Truth," etc.,) directed "Love Affair," with Irene Dunne and Charles Boyer. Cary Grant saw the movie and fell in love with it. He persuaded McCarey to direct him and Deborah Kerr in a remake, using the original screenplay almost word-for-word. Color and wide-screen were added. It isn't their fault if Grant and Kerr aren't quite Boyer and Dunne; still they create their own compelling screen chemistry. The script is a knockout, old-fashioned romance and witty, adult dialogue. Both movies are well worth the viewing, with the prize going to the earlier version only by a little bit. Oh, except that the songs in the second version are something cringe-making. But watch out for that last scene, it's a killer in both movies!

Gentleman's Agreement (1947)

A great, often-misunderstood film...

[9/10 · 23 June 2001]

It interests me that several people have compared this film to its contemporary, "Crossfire." What most people probably don't know is that the latter film is based on a novel, "The Brick Foxhole," about what happens to a gay man. Homophobia was not acceptable as a topic; anti-semitism barely was. "Gentlemen's Agreement" remains one of the few serious examinations of the prejudice it discusses. As evidenced by some of the above critiques, its message of hidden, even unconscious anti-semitism is still misunderstood by viewers today. It isn't necessary to intend to be anti-semitic, or homophobic, or racist; those traits are passed on from parent to child, and often reinforced by the biases of the society as a whole. If the screenplay of "Gentlemen's Agreement" seems to hammer at its topic, it's actually what was needed at the time, and what is still needed, even now. A great film for its time, superlatively written and directed, and acted by an expert cast at the top of their forms; a great film now.

Meet Joe Black (1998)

How long does a dream last?

[8/10 · 29 April 2001]

Martin Brest has delivered a spacious movie, in which he rightly allows plenty of time for his actors to register very complex emotions, which they do most admirably. The moment when Claire Forlani realizes just who Joe Black really is is moving and memorable. Brad Pitt beautifully conveys the difference between the two characters who inhabit his body; and Anthony Hopkins delivers a tour de force from beginning to end. I know it's a hard thing to do in these frenetic times, but try letting go of reality and day-to-day mundanity when you watch this and other movies. Go with the characters; let the director take you on a journey. When the whole story is a fantasy, don't nit-pick about "inconsistencies." So the situation is preposterous; sometimes preposterous things happen to people and they discover new ways to respond to those experiences. A dream is as real to our brain as waking reality.

Curse of the Demon (1957)

To a 12-year old kid, the scariest movie ever!

[9/10 · 9 December 2000]

The theatre was not full when my brother and I were left to see this movie. I remember jumping out of my seat when the halloween kids screamed "Boo!" and then laughing. My kid brother asked me what was so funny. As the movie went on, piling suspense on suspense, culminating with the demon standing over the roaring locomotive, I was totally transported. In the lobby afterward, I was still trembling with excitement. What's wonderful is that as an adult I found the movie had lost none of its power. The recutting may or may not be a mistake; I haven't as yet been able to see the original. But it remains one of the most impressive of all horror movies I've ever seen.

Hallelujah (1929)

A great movie from a great director.

[7 June 2000]

It's important to realize this was only the first year of sound pictures. Seen in that light, HALLELUJAH! has a remarkable fluidity, and a freedom from the tyranny of the sound camera that is little short of astonishing. (See "Singin' in the Rain" for a realistic depiction of this problem.) The acting is on a high level, if somewhat dated. King Vidor did an admirable job in depicting his characters' life condition, and was deservedly nominated as Best Director of 1929/30.