mdouglasfresno Reviews

Insomnia (2002)

Dead dog of a movie?

[5/10 · 18 August 2007]

Well, maybe not quite a dead dog (as in this movie's most talked-about scene), but could've been better. Actually I found this version to an okay time-filler; but nothing more. The Norwegian original this was based on would have to be considered far superior. We've probably seen Al Pacino in the detective role too many times, and Robin Williams, while good, enters the plot much too late.

Now onto the "meat" of the plot (if you'll pardon the expression): the dead dog scene. In the Norwegian original, the detective shoots a LIVE dog to fake the ballistic evidence; this is both an emotionally jarring scene and serves to further alienate the detective from the sympathy of the audience. In this version, Christopher Nolan chooses to plan it safe and have Al Pacino (conveniently) come upon a dead dog, and later return to the corpse to shoot it, then dig the slug out of it's carcass. While not packing the same wallop, this scene IS well done by Nolan and very grisly in it's own right -- we not only see the dog's death-snarl and sightless eye, but we cannot fail to recognize the gruesome fact that digging around in a rotting dog corpse has got to be pretty darn gross! I recall that in the theater, this scene provoked the most gasps from shocked theater-goers. Nolan probably figured showing the shooting of a live dog would alienate American movie patrons from his motion picture....guess Norwegian audiences are made of heartier stock!

Triple Cross (1966)

Good, but could've been better

[7/10 · 1 June 2007]

An interesting if not wholly successful WWII/Spy movie, based (very loosely) on a true story. Unfortunately, the use of a James Bond director and a couple of actors from Bond films naturally prompts comparisons, which is not completely fair. I don't know if Terence Young consciously tried to make a wartime Bond imitation; I simply can't believe he could of regarded Christopher Plummer as a adequate substitute for Sean Connery! But if one disregards the Bondian roots of the movie, "Triple Cross" is a fairly good film. Yes, Plummer is no Sean Connery, but he pulls off a fairly good performance; and if he comes off to viewers as bemused and smirking, then he succeeded in capturing at least one side of the real Eddie Chapman's persona. I agree with previous posters that he and Romy Schneider make an unconvincing pair; they just don't have any chemistry in their scenes together. Also, the script was a bit turgid, especially concerning Yul Brynner's activities, but that wasn't a major handicap.

I think the worst thing about "Triple Cross" is the annoying, "mod" Sixties theme song. A song like that might have worked in a Bond film, but it's totally out-of-place in a thriller set in the 1940's. I remember thinking so when I first saw the movie in 1967, and now of course the theme sounds horribly dated. Surprised they didn't get Tom Jones of "Thunderball" fame to sing it (instead of the unknown Tony Allen)! Well, maybe Tom was busy recording "What's New, Pussycat?".

The rest of the score is an improvement, but still barely adequate. By comparison, that other WWII thriller produced in 1966, "The Night of the Generals", had a much superior musical score -- and without a "hip" theme song! Interestingly, both movies manage to work-in the Hitler assassination plot, and Christopher Plummer even made a cameo appearance in "Night of the Generals" as Rommel.

I think of any movie, "Triple Cross" perhaps has more in common with "The Man Who Never Was"; though admittedly that movie played it much more serious. Seeing the Trevor Howard character immediately reminded me of Clifton Webb, right down to the beard!

The Night of the Generals (1967)

Overlooked Gem of the Sixties

[9/10 · 31 May 2007]

On balance an excellent movie. I won't bother to rehash the plot, which has been amply covered by previous posters, but will say that the production values, acting, and script are all top-notch. I found this adaptation of the 1964 Hans Hellmut Kirst novel to actually be superior to the book (how many movies can claim that?). I think screenwriter Paul Dehn tightened things up a bit, plot-wise, but for those who still insist that "The Night of the Generals" is over-long, I would point out that distilling any 300+ page book down into even a 146 minute screenplay is no easy matter. I'd prefer a longer movie to a butchered storyline any time. My main complaint against the novel is that I simply didn't care for the writing style of Kirst, which I found very turgid. Of course, I admit that writing style is a matter of taste, but I'm glad the movie didn't slavishly follow the book in tone.

The switch of General Tanz from Wehrmacht to Waffen SS was a bit jarring, but historically speaking, is not without precedent. I think the reason they use this device was simply to further highlight Tanz' descent into evil and madness -- having him join a notoriously evil organization (whether such a move was cinematically necessary is debatable, considering Tanz' obvious lunacy).

The tanks used appear to be fairly good recreations of the Tiger tank (though not exact), which is refreshing after seeing so many modern American tanks pressed into service as German types by Hollywood. The sets are uniformly good, from the Warsaw Ghetto to the garrison of Tanz' division in occupied France (actual French fortifications of the period were used for the filming, just as they had actually been used by the occupying Germans during the war).

Unlike many posters, I found the subplot involving the Hitler assassination attempt in 1944 to be the high-point of the movie, lifting it from a mere murder investigation of prostitutes into the realm of one of the most interesting and important events of WWII. Had the plot succeeded, 10 months of bloody carnage on the battlefields and in the extermination camps would have been saved. The recreation of the bomb-plot is not completely accurate, but reasonably enough so. (Of course, it's best not to look too closely at the rather prominent lump on the side of Von Stauffenburg -- where actor Gerald Buhr's arm was hidden under his tunic!) But the including of the bomb-plot not only serves to tie together the storyline, but provides real excitement (even though we know it's going to fail).

Kudos to Omar Sharif for his portrayal of Major (later Lt. Colonel) Grau, though I agree that maybe he could have gotten alittle more screen-time (in favor of the over-abundance of scenes with nerdy Tom Courtney!). The Grau character itself is, however, alittle too "good to be true". While obviously seeing the point about contrasting murders large and small, I have to wonder just what really drives Grau in his pursuit of "pure justice"?

Grau simply comes off a bit too "holier-than-thou" for as high a ranking officer as a Lt. Colonel of Intelligence in the German Army. A truly principled man would not be serving such a despotic state in which justice had visibly been denied so many in Germany (starting in 1933)...to say nothing of murdering & enslaving neighboring peoples. If Grau were so high-minded, then how could he serve such a master? I would of found him more believable had he simply had some other motivation for pursuing the killer, such as wanting to further his career by landing a "big fish", or perhaps some smoldering resentment against "Army brass". The idea that Grau was so lily-pure that he yearned only that justice be served might be believed in some other army, but not Nazi Germany's! (Besides, even had he nailed Tanz for the murders, does anyone really believe that "Hitler's favorite" wouldn't have been quietly and quickly released? After all, this is Nazi Germany -- hardly a paragon of virtue!) Ultimately, in a strange turnabout, General Kahlenberg (Donald Pleasence) is doing more to fight evil by trying to rid Germany of Hitler than Lt. Col. Grau with his insignificant murder investigation.

As for all the comments about non-German actors portraying Germans and speaking English...I would think that everyone would be used to that by now, after 80 years of sound motion pictures! That the mostly-British cast doesn't attempt "authentic" (???) German accents is good. After-all, to be really "authentic", the actors would be SPEAKING German -- not English with faked German accents! And frankly, I find reading subtitles tedious -- so I don't mind "Germans" (or anyone else in movies) speaking English.

Finally, I agree that the switchbacks between WWII and 1960's can be alittle jarring, but it does serve the plot line, and is an interesting narrative style of both book and movie. I would also agree that the end of the picture, which takes place in the 1960's, is somewhat anti-climatic, especially after the shocking scene of Grau's murder. But it IS necessary to tie up the storyline which would otherwise be left dangling. Obviously Inspector Morand couldn't do anything back in 1944 in Nazi-occupied France, so to have him solve all the murders (including Grau's) in "modern" times is a good final touch (though one may wonder why he waited so long to do it -- after all, the war had been over for 20 years...perhaps he had his suspicions of Tanz all along, but no proof, until the Hamburg murder.) At any rate, "The Night of the Generals" is good enough to qualify as MUST SEE cinema!

Casino Royale (2006)

Craig is excellent,, but Connery (still) rules!

[7/10 · 3 February 2007]

This Bond movie was certainly a breath of fresh air, after 35 years of junk. "Casino Royale" is definitely superior to any of the Bond movies Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, or Pierce Brosnan appeared in. And Bond is finally back to something approximating Ian Fleming's creation.

I'd have to say Daniel Craig is probably the closest incarnation of the Fleming Bond yet. However, that's not to say that the variations that Connery/Broccoli/Saltzman came up with for Bond weren't absolutely critical to James Bond's acceptance by movie audiences. Even purists would have to agree that had "Dr. No" completely recreated Fleming's very cold-blooded, humorless Bond, then there probably never would have been a series at all; just one fine movie, but a box-office flop.

Daniel Craig is excellent, yet he doesn't have the screen magnetism or star quality of Sean Connery (of course he's light-years ahead of the rest of the Bonds). Still, I might have rated this movie nearer to the best of the Connery movies (Dr. No thru Thunderball) had it been done as a "period piece" set in the 1950's. This was the producers BIGGEST ERROR. The character of Bond simply works best in the Fifties/early Sixties as Fleming intended; NOT in the 70's/80's/90's/2000's!!!

The overall "feel" of this movie is just too "modern" for an adaptation of an Ian Fleming novel, in everything from wardrobe and hairstyles to political-correctness and standard action-picture set-ups. Perhaps the special synthesis that all came together for movie-making in the early 60's simply cannot be duplicated now. But those early Bond pics had a look and feel that is simply irresistible; that transports me back to the Early 60's whenever I see them. I'd have to say that probably even if filmed as a period piece, any Bond movie done now just couldn't duplicate that style. Those alive at the time might understand what I'm talking about; those born in later eras probably never could. The early Bond films were, like Fleming's novels, creatures of their time. Nothing done nowadays can touch that era. That's why this "Casino Royale", while excellent for a current movie, doesn't approach the early Bond films. And for me, Sean Connery IS James Bond 007. Always had been, always will be.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Worst Bond Ever? I don't think so...

[6/10 · 3 February 2007]

Sure, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" does have it's "ups and downs". I agree it's far from the best Bond movie ever. But to those posters who claim it's the worst, I would have to wonder just how many Bond films they've really seen. Anyone who can rate garbage like "The Man with the Golden Gun" or "Moonraker" as BETTER than OHMSS is crazy. Those two pathetic efforts easily take the award for poorest Bond movies ever. I personally rate "Moonraker" as absolute rock-bottom because it's more a filmed cartoon than anything else, both in plot and in totally out-of-place slapstick comedy. True, "Golden Gun" has the horrid shenanigans of the redneck sheriff; but at least he didn't START OUT as an evil henchman and degenerate into excruciating comic relief the way Jaws did. Just check out the scene of Jaws falling in love with the dumb little German girl, as romantic music swells, if you don't believe me. Or the scene were a pigeon does a double-take at the sight of Bond's gondola hovercraft! At least OHMSS stuck to Bondian witticisms for it's humor (even if Lazenby couldn't deliver them half as well as Connery), rather than showing such lowbrow cornball hokum.

In fact, while Roger Moore was a better actor than George Lazenby, he was given precious little to work with during his tenure, and had to endure the worst Bond pics of the series. The Moore films were not only a disgrace to Ian Fleming's novels, but to the earlier Bond movies as well. OHMSS stands up favorably to any of the Moore movies.

OHMSS is definitely a "mixed bag". Lazenby is not very believable as Bond, but he had the bad timing of taking the role right after five Sean Connery efforts. Heck, who (including Roger Moore) wasn't going to suffer in comparison with Connery? The ads for "You Only Live Twice" had it right -- "Sean Connery IS James Bond 007"...now and forever. As for Lazenby, he was just adequate, nothing more.

Diana Rigg is one of the two best Bond girls ever (the other being Honor Blackman of "Goldfinger"...interesting how both appeared in the fine British TV show "The Avengers"). However, Angela Scoular as Ruby is probably the worst (with the possible exception of Britt Ekland). She could hardly be considered good-looking (especially next to the other gals up there at Piz Gloria) and that silly French poodle hairdo is sooooo icky! Makes her look like a clown. Why Bond wastes his time and energy on her, when there's so many nice dishes he could sample from, is a mystery. I kept hoping she'd be the obligatory "sacraficial lamb" that all the Bond films seem to have, with the chilling Irma Blunt killing her after discovering Bond had bedded her. That would have been a logical move, since Blofeld would have to suspect she was "compromised" as an agent by Bond, and such a killing certainly would've fit into the "sacraficial lamb" formula of the whole series. Oh, well...

The lack of a vocal main theme during the opening credits might have proved a mistake, had John Barry not come up with such a driving and exciting instrumental. This theme stands up with the "greats" of the Bond series. On the downside is the utterly out-of-place Louis Armstrong, singing "We Have All the Time in the World" used in the montage where Bond and Diana Rigg fall in love. No offense to Satchmo, but to hear him in the middle of a Bond picture is rather jarring. The opening titles aren't bad, even if there is the rather patronizing inclusion of characters from the previous Bond films (sans Connery, of course); great use of the usual naked silhouettes along with icons of the British Empire, such as Britannia w/ Trident and Crown.

One scene that tried too hard to tie in Lazenby with the Bond series and DIDN't work was where he's cleaning out his desk and comes across relics of past cases (i.e. past movies). Since Lazenby wasn't in those movies, the scene comes off as ludicrous.

Telly Savalas is a weak Bofeld; better to have had Donald Pleasence reprise the role. The plot is over-all merely adequate. The scene were Bond cracks the safe to copy documents, while mundane, is at least more realistic spy work; something one might imagine a real secret agent doing. All in all I'd rate OHMSS as good, but not great, Bond.

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

Worst Bond Ever...Until Moonraker

[1/10 · 3 February 2007]

Worst Bond movie ever? "Man with the Golden Gun" or "Moonraker"? Yep, when I first saw "Man With the Golden Gun" I thought it was the worst excuse of a Bond movie imaginable. Dumb plot. Icky sidekick Nick-Nack. Poor actress in lead (Britt Ekland). Uninspired title song. And totally out-of-place, unfunny slapstick humor ("Sheriff J.W. Pepper rides again!"). But five years later I saw such shenanigans as a pigeon doing a double-take, Bond horseback riding to the strains of "The Magnificent Seven", and Jaws strolling hand-in-hand with girlfriend in "Moonraker" and I knew rock-bottom had been reached. Such efforts as "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "You Only Live Twice" look like high art next to these turkeys.

Moonraker (1979)

...while Ian Fleming spins in his grave...

[1/10 · 3 February 2007]

To even include this monstrosity of a movie in a catalog of Jame Bond films borders on travesty. This was NOT Bond! This was simply a sorry attempt to cash-in on the space craze started by Star Wars, and complete the process of turning Bond into a comic-book character. Fleming's Bond (or even Eon's early Bond incarnation, as played by Sean Connery) is by now totally unrecognizable. He's not a secret agent (and government-sanctioned assassin) but a jet-setting playboy crime-fighter who stumbles from one action set-piece to another. Roger Moore's Bond is a total lightweight, and comes across about as credible as Inspector Gadget. Maybe that's fitting, because "Moonraker" is far more a filmed cartoon than a spy thriller.

True, "Moonraker" didn't begin the slide from Fleming's vision into comic-strip, but did it accelerate it! You could even say that "Moonraker" ran the series right into the ground, so naturally there was no where else to go but "up" for the next entry, "For Your Eyes Only". "Moonraker" is absolute rock-bottom for the entire series, what with a totally outlandish plot, overblown futuristic sets straight out of "Star Trek", one-dimensional characters who are as thin as cardboard, and (most embarrassing of all) ill-advised attempts at broad humor.

The plot is senseless and ridiculous. True, Fleming's novel was horribly dated by 1979, but ANYTHING would have been better than what Christopher Wood finally dreamed up. Drax plotting to destroy all life on earth and breed a new generation of perfect people under his rule in a space station??? Does this make ANY sense??? All the action sequences are only tired re-workings of previous movies (far too many to list, but suffice to say that I saw elements of virtually every previous Bond flick made to date). And if this rehash wasn't enough, they even went so far as to bring back the "crowd-pleaser" of the previous film, Jaws. Jaws made a mildly interesting villain for one movie, but trying to sustain menace into a 2nd appearance just doesn't work -- you get the feeling that both Bond AND Jaws are completely indestructible, so where's the tension in their fights? I suspect the producers and screenwriter must have recognized this too, for mid-way thru they turn Jaws into a virtual cartoon character, and ultimately a "hero" who helps Bond. (Can anyone remotely picture Odd-job having a change-of-heart in Fort Knox and helping Bond diffuse the bomb???)

But what makes "Moonraker" truly unbearable is the comic relief. While Fleming purists might not like the witty remarks and tongue-in-cheek humor of the early Bond films, it could be argued that such an approach did make Bond more salable to the movie-going public. I suspect that if Eon Productions had retained the utterly humorless Bond of the novels, then "Dr. No" would have been a "one-off" production only, instead of the longest-running series in motion picture history. Unfortunately, each movie (especially from "Diamonds are Forever" on) became more and more campy and comic. By the time "Moonraker" was made Bond was being played strictly for laughs. James Brosnan, author of "James Bond in the Cinema", has called "Moonraker" the most expensive slapstick movie since "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World"...and unfortunately he's right.

The gondola sequence in Venice comes off as ridiculous; the craft itself is stupid-looking, and the scene is far too reminiscent of the boat-chases in "Live and Let Die" and "Man w/ the Golden Gun". But the scene really sinks into the pathetic when the gondola becomes a hovercraft and moves into the piazza. At this point we see tourists staring in disbelief and suspiciously eyeing their drinks, people falling into the water a la the Three Stooges, and even pigeons doing double-takes! (Man, but Ian Fleming must have been doing some serious turns in his grave at this point). Then we're treated to a scene in which Bond gains entrance to a lab by typing on a touch-tone pad, and it's naturally the alien's tune of "Close Encounters" (groan). Bond also rides a horse, dressed as a gaucho, to the theme from "The Magnificent Seven" (gag).

But Jaws contributes the most embarrassing scene in the entire movie (and the entire Bond series) when he meets that little blonde German gal and it's love-at-first-sight. They come together to the strains of "Tara's Theme" from "Gone with the Wind" and walk off hand-in-hand. OH MY GOD...truly excruciating!!! (By now poor old Ian Fleming must of been spinning like a top). When I first saw this scene in 1979, I was practically grasping for a barf-bag. But I noticed there were plenty of yahoos in the audience who were belly-laughing big-time. Geez, but talk about the producers playing to the lowest common denominator. (And I thought the redneck sheriff of "Live and Let Die" and "Man w/ the Golden Gun" was as cheesy as it comes!). Jaw-in-Love would be bad enough to sink even a good movie (which "Moonraker" certainly is NOT) all by itself. But it's inclusion here insures "Moonraker" as the WORST Bond film EVER.

Patton (1970)

Great performance by a truly underrated actor

[10/10 · 26 January 2007]

Not much else I can add to all the favorable comments about this movie. "Patton" is definitely George C. Scott's greatest performance, and was truly Oscar-worthy. It's funny that George C. Scott has never received the acclaim he deserves as one of our best actors. He wasn't a "big star" type, like Clark Gable, John Wayne, Henry Fonda, etc., but he was an excellent actor who could completely submerge his persona into that of the character he was portraying. To me this is the mark of a truly great actor, as opposed to a "movie star". Marlon Brando has often been hailed as America's best actor, but I think Scott beats him hands-down.

George C. Scott's entire career shows an astonishing breadth and depth, and he could convincingly portray characters who were in no way alike. Next to this, the "big stars" of Hollywood always seemed to be themselves, merely playing a different character. Scott was equally convincing as General Patton, as an aging con-artist in "The Film-Flam Man", as Sherlock Holmes (or at least a guy who thought he was Holmes)in "They Might Be Giants", as a flamboyant Air Force general in "Dr. Strangelove", as a seedy wheeler-dealer in "The Hustler", as a chilling Ebinezer Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol", as a burnt-out boozy doctor in "The Hospital", as a retired British Army officer turned detective in "The List of Adrian Messenger", or as a hard-bitten veteran LAPD cop in "The New Centurians". Other solid efforts that immediately come to mind include "Petulia", "Anatomy of a Murder", "The Changling", and "The Day of the Dolphin" (he was about the best thing in that otherwise very mediocre movie). By contrast, Brando peaked early in a few convincing roles, then went downhill fast with one ludicrous performance after another (anyone care to remember such pics as "Reflections in a Golden Eye"? "Desiree"? "A Countess from Hong Kong"? "Teahouse of the August Moon"? just to name a few).

Perhaps George C. Scott never received his due as a great actor because he was so much an "outsider" (including his famous refusal of the Oscar for "Patton"); maybe the Hollywood-types never forgave him for not acting beholden to them. At any rate "Patton", like many other George C. Scott movies, is definitely "must see" cinema!

The House of Seven Corpses (1974)

Boring up until the last confusing 20 minutes

[3/10 · 22 January 2007]

After reading the previous comments, I'm just glad that I wasn't the only person left confused, especially by the last 20 minutes. John Carradine is shown twice walking down into a grave and pulling the lid shut after him. I anxiously awaited some kind of explanation for this odd behavior...naturally I assumed he had something to do with the evil goings-on at the house, but since he got killed off by the first rising corpse (hereafter referred to as Zombie #1), these scenes made absolutely no sense. Please, if someone out there knows why Carradine kept climbing down into graves -- let the rest of us in on it!!

All the action is confined to the last 20 minutes so I'll attempt a synopsis. John Carradine comes out to the cemetery to investigate, and is throttled by Zombie #1. So far, so good. But then we get the confusing scene where John Ireland and Jerry Strickler, out for a little moonlight filming in the graveyard, discover Carradine's dead body. Strickler repeatedly tries to push Ireland into the open grave from whence Zombie #1 had emerged, but Ireland succeeds in flipping him into the open grave instead, and PRESTO! Strickler comes out as Zombie #2! Yeah, I guess we can infer that Strickler was dead all-along (a witch?), but why he changed from normal appearance into rotting-flesh version by flying into Zombie #1's grave is never explained. (Considering how excruciatingly slow-moving these zombies are, I'd of thought he would have preferred to stay in his "normal" form until his business was concluded). This scene also brings a question to mind -- just who the heck IS Zombie #1 ??? We can only assume Zombie #1 is one of the original murder victims shown during the movie's opening credits, but who knows which one, nor why he has a particular grudge against the film crew.

Anyway, after Ireland sees this transformation and runs away, we see the EXACT SAME SHOT of Zombie #2 shambling through the trees as we saw for Zombie #1. (This leads to momentary confusion over just how MANY zombies there really are). Then in best 1950's horror-movie fashion Ireland manages to trip while fleeing. He conveniently knocks his head on the small headstone of Faith Domergue's dead cat (wasn't that nice of John Carradine to chisel a tombstone for a cat that he barely knew?)

Meanwhile, Zombie #1 has been wrecking havoc up at the house. He easily dispatches three film-crew members, then starts up the stairs. Faith Domergue hears him, and thinking it's lover John Ireland back from his night-shoot, goes out. Upon seeing it's only Zombie #1, she lets out a scream and retreats into a bedroom where she retrieves Ireland's revolver. While starlet Carole Wells is showering at this point and can't hear the scream, her co-star Charles Macauley (who's boozing and hamming it up at a mirror in his bedroom) does. Taking his sweet time (and only after some more swigs from his hip-flask) he finally decides to investigate. (One thing that strikes the viewer during the last quarter of this movie is how SLOW TO REACT the stars are to screams and gunshots). Domergue comes back out into the hallway armed and ready, but mistakes Macauley for Zombie #1 and shoots him six times! He does a nice acrobatic flip over the railing, then a horrified Domergue backs up, right into the waiting arms of Zombie #1.

Carole Wells is by now out of her shower and drying off when she hears gunshots and Domergue's screams; she too feels no great urgency in running out to investigate. So during this time Zombie #1 has time to string Domergue up from the neck with a rope. Wells sees Domergue's hanging corpse and faints dead-away. The next time we see her is in a stream outside the house (???) -- but more on that later. Meantime, Ireland has recovered his senses and stumbles into the house where he discovers Zombie #1's bloody carnage. Though Ireland has just stumbled upon 3 murdered people he's more concerned that his film has been exposed and ruined! Mercifully for him (and the audience), Zombie #1 throws some movie equipment down on his head from the 2nd floor. That's the last we see of Zombie #1. At this point the audience is treated to a montage of all the deaths, showing that the new ones "mirror" the old ones. How profound.

Zombie #2, meanwhile, has gotten near the house (remember, these zombies move as slow as molasses in January) where he happens to see Carole Wells floating by in a stream, and fishes her out. How did she get there? Did Zombie #1 carry her down, throw her in, then zoom back upstairs just in time to crush John Ireland? Apparently one of the original victims was drowned in the tub, so Wells has to drown too (but why outside in a stream, instead of in the tub, is never explained). Zombie #2 never makes it into the house himself (everyone's dead by now, anyways, thanks to Zombie #1) but instead he carries Carol Wells back to the graveyard. As the end credits flash on screen, we see Zombie #2 with his dead love still in his arms, descending into the open grave.

The viewer is left wondering: Yes, but wasn't this Zombie #1's grave? Why is Zombie #2 taking up residence? And what if Zombie #1 comes along and wants to climb back in -- is Zombie #2 gonna let him, or will there be a zombie fight? Will the zombies share both the grave and the newly deceased Carole Wells? And what about now-dead John Carradine -- where's he gonna stay? After all, from the earlier scenes we know he's clearly at home in the grave... If this plot synopsis of the finale has left you confused, don't worry cause you're not alone.

Krakatoa: East of Java (1968)

Krakatoa, WEST of Java

[5/10 · 19 January 2007]

This one's definitely a "mixed-bag"; a movie that wasn't quite sure what it wanted to be. Disaster epic? Musical? Psychological drama? Romance? Adventure? Comedy? The producers threw all these elements into "the old stew pot", gave it a brisk stir, and hoped for the best. For one thing, this movie was simply made at the wrong time -- this just wasn't "were it was at" for audiences in 1969; it looked badly dated and inconsequential. It would have fit far better among the B-picture adventure yarns that were being churned out in the 1950's. Yet unfortunately for the producers, it was too early to be part of the "disaster pic" cycle of the mid-Seventies (though they did re-release it under a new name at that time, maybe hoping to recoup their losses?).

I don't know the whole story on the production, but it sounds like the producers were very anxious to get "into the can" all the special effects footage they could of volcano and tsunami, without any concept of how it was going to be pieced together. Apparently they started without anything approaching a finished script, and tried to tack together a story during the filming. Continuity is shaky, the subplots seem underdeveloped, so overall the movie has a sloppy, poorly-edited look. I have to wonder if much of it didn't end up on the cutting room floor. This slip-shod approach probably explains how a major motion picture release could contain in it's title such a glaring mistake in geography!

The musical score, and especially Mack David's theme song, is lovely, but it's simply MUCH TOO "Sixties" for a movie set in the 1880's. On the whole, the acting is fairly solid. Diane Baker and Barbara Werle share duties in the romance department; unfortunately, Barbara's character "Charley" is a source of much unintended humor. Worst scene of the movie is where she sings and dances (and strips) around the stateroom she shares with Brian Keith. Was this supposed to be "seductive"? I recall being stupefied at this sudden and unexpected musical interlude; Brian Keith however just looks totally bored. The special effects are okay for their time, and there's enough adventure in this movie to at least make it watchable.

The Shining (1997)

Hands-down Better Than Kubrick!

[8/10 · 16 January 2007]

This version of The Shining (hereafter called the Stephen King version) is hands-down the better one! Kubrick's is flaunted as the best horror film ever -- give me a break! If not for the legion of Kubrick & Nicholson fans out there, the 1980 version would have long-ago sunk without a trace. Obviously the TV version is FAR closer to the book, which I regard as King's best. But virtually any comparison between the two leaves Kubrick out in the cold.

First, you simply can't distill a book of The Shining's length and complexity down to a feature film and not leave most of it on the floor. No wonder folks who watched Kubrick's version without reading the book expressed confusion over the plot! In any true adaptation, greater running time is better. Kubrick gives so little character development that everyone comes across as cardboard caricatures, and worse, are unappealing from the start. King at least fleshes out the principals and gives some explanation to their later actions. The casting might not be perfect, but it's far better Kubrick's. Steven Weber starts as a fairly likable Jack, who slowly descends into madness; Jack Nicholson is a unfriendly lout who plunges head-first into raving lunacy. This is absolutely key to a movie: if you start out with unsympathetic characters, and a family who looks like they can't stand each other, then you fail to involve the viewer, so where's the emotional stake in them? It's difficult to accept Nicholson as a loving family man from the outset, as he has little connection with his wife and none with his son. In fact, watching the 1980 movie you find he shares almost no scenes with Danny! Very strange, considering the amount of interaction they shared in the book. Kubrick totally botched this all-important aspect in his film. While Nicholson might add camp value in his over-the-top, scenery-chewing performance, he was simply not the actor to portray Jack Torrance's "good half". You feel he's a bomb waiting to go off from his first scene. Weber comes off as a normal everyman, so there's the necessary contrast once he goes mad. While Rebecca DeMornay's casting still misses the mark (she's not a very good actress and comes off too much like a overage teen), she's head-and-shoulders above the wimpy, mousey Shelley Duvall, who played Wendy as cartoonish as she had Olive Oil in "Popeye". I'd rate Duvall's performance as the worst thing in an already troubled movie. Her hair & wardrobe makes her look like a clown, she seems to be reading her lines off cue-cards, and she comes off as neurotic and pathetic. She's so yucky that, in the excruciating scene where Jack backs her across the room and up the stairway, you're rooting for him to grab the bat and bash her brains in! The kid who plays Danny in King's version isn't ideal, but he's far superior to the Danny of the Kubrick version. That kid was so zombiefied and obviously lacking in talent that he generated absolutely no sympathy whatsoever. This was probably Kubrick's worst sin, for Danny WAS the central character of the plot, and having him likable was simply A MUST. Kubrick leaves us not caring whether he survives or not. Incidentally, the characterization of "Tony" in King's version was no great shakes, but at least it wasn't a laughable hand-puppet act to an Exorcist-type growling voice! King's Overlook is what one would expect of a 100-year old hotel with a bad past; it's darker and moodier than Kubrick's. In his sets, Kubrick consciously plays "against type" for horror movies -- his Overlook is bright and airy (big mistake for a horror pic) and comes off about as menacing as the local Holiday Inn. Kubrick also horribly over-lit his sets, which again defuses the menace, and is downright ANNOYING! King's version properly restores the moving topiary animals, and dispenses with Kubrick's un-scary, static hedge maze. The climax rightly follows the book in having the final confrontation face-to-face in the hotel. Kubrick's climax MIGHT have worked had it actually showed Jack cornering Danny and having the emotional show-down. But since Jack never catches up with Danny, and most of the time we have no idea if Jack's right behind him or clear on the other side of the maze, the air goes out of the climax faster than a tire popping. King's version also had Halloran miscast, but at least he's not turned into fodder for gore-minded fans as Kubrick foolishly did. A James Earl Jones or Ossie Davis was my idea of Halloran -- not doddering Scatman or "hip" Van Pebbles. Elliot Gould was OK as Ullman; at least he was the same S.O.B. of the book, and not the Mr. Nice-guy airhead Kubrick gives us in Barry Nelson!

Most important of all, King actually focuses on the hotel itself as the evil, and Jack as it's pawn. He gives some history of the place to establish that evil (beyond merely mentioning Grady's atrocity). Kubrick sadly downplays the supernatural aspect throughout (even his Grady could've been just another latent psycho who snapped while snowbound), and leaves the viewer feeling that these were simply troubled people who shouldn't have been cooped up together for the winter. Ultimately Kubrick was the wrong choice for this project, cause he had no faith in the supernatural aspects of the book. Yeah, he throws in some stock scares for effect (especially while Wendy is aimlessly running around towards the end), but they seem silly and out of place. (And do we really need three scenes of a blood-filled elevator???) In King's book and movie, Danny is the central character and his "shining" is the ultimate good, while the Overlook Hotel is the antagonist and the ultimate evil. There's nothing ambiguous about it. Watching Kubrick's version I get the feeling of Jack as the human embodiment of 2001's HAL. Good sci-fi, but bad horror.

Earthquake (1974)

"Mirthquake"

[1/10 · 16 January 2007]

Ah yes, watching this movie is a real nostalgic trip back to the mid-Seventies...when disaster movies were all the rage (making money no matter how badly slopped-together the result); "spot-the-star" epics answered questions of whatever happened to old actors ("Did you see Gloria Swanson in Airport 1975? Why, I thought she'd been dead for YEARS!"); Sensurround was new and fun (except if you happened to own the business right next to the neighborhood theater); loud plaid slacks and sport coats were fashionable (so were neckties 2 feet wide); and Shirley Temple mop-tops were "in" (even for guys).

Seems to me Earthquake garnered quite a few Oscars in it's day, as well. Let's see, there was "Most Ludicrous Casting in Movie History" (an old, haggard Ava Gardener playing Lorne Greene's DAUGHTER...guess he fathered her while still in diapers); "Most Painful Performance by a Major Star in a Cameo Role" (Walter Matthau's "hilarious" turn as a dancing wino who entertains the poor survivors in a parking garage); "Most Excruciating Rescue Scene" (getting a hundred people down a broken stairwell, ONE AT A TIME, using an office chair and a fire hose); and "Most Boring Screen Couple of All-Time" (the newlyweds on the incoming jumbo jet)....oh, wait, that last one was an Emmy-winner, since it was not included in the original theatrical release, but tacked on for the network premier. Gee but AM I GLAD somebody thought of including 45 minutes on this subplot -- the movie might have actually been boring without the inclusion of these fascinating rejects from a deodorant commercial.

Let's see what else Earthquake has to offer. Oh, yes there's small-time operator Richard Roundtree's "thrilling" death ride on a motorcycle (He jumps thru a ring of fire. WHOA! Move over, Evel Knievel). And Marjoe Gortner's wide-eyed lunatic Guardsman with the hots for afro-wearing Victoria Principal (upholding his honor by shooting two dudes who insinuated he was gay). Then there's some riveting scenes between bored-looking Charlton Heston and drunkard wife Ava Gardner (I recall the biggest laughs in the theater occurring when he forsakes cute Genevieve Bujold for shrewish Ava, heroically plunging down a raging storm drain to his death in a vain attempt to save her). George Kennedy virtually reprising his character from TV's "The Blue Knight" (wait a minute, wasn't he supposed to appear as Joe Petroni in the jumbo jet subplot? Somebody goofed). Oh yes, the gripping rescue of Genevieve's kid in an open storm drain from (gasp!) a power line AND onrushing water! (The brat is unconscious thru this whole ordeal, mercifully for him and the audience). Folks, it just doesn't get any better than this. Earthquake definitely constitutes "must see" TV!

The Partridge Family (1970–1974)

Favorite show growing up

[9/10 · 16 January 2007]

This was my favorite show growing up, and I still enjoy it now. It's stood up much better than most shows of that era because it's still funny, and has surprisingly good music. Shirley Jones, David Cassidy, Danny Bonaduce, Dave Madden and Susan Dey all contributed to the show's success, and had a good chemistry between them. The interplay especially between Keith, Danny, and Reuben is priceless. I liked the first season best because of the freshness of the concept, and cause I think Jeremy Gelbwaks was the better (and cuter) Chris Partridge. Never seen such enormous blue eyes as Jeremy's! Tracy was definitely stiff in the part and couldn't seem to bang a tambourine in sync with the music, but fortunately her role in the show was minimal. I laughed reading the other poster's comments about Jeremy Gelbwaks leaving, cause I remember those silly rumors myself, such as that he'd died (even at the hands of David Cassidy!). The truth is much more mundane: his dad got a job transfer with his employer from Los Angeles to Virginia right after the end of the first season. Jeremy's alive and well, making a living as a systems programmer in New Orleans (and has been pitching in to clean up that unfortunate city after Hurricane Katrina struck). The latest I've heard on Dave Madden is that he's still around, too. He continued comic work on the nightclub circuit after the Partridge Family was canceled, and was especially in demand for voice-overs in commercials.

Come On, Get Happy: The Partridge Family Story (1999 TV Movie)

The Partridge Family, According to Danny Bonaduce

[1/10 · 16 January 2007]

Basically a glossy but empty-headed TV-movie that never should have been made. Since Danny wrote this mess, I wasn't surprised at how self-serving it was. Yet I have to wonder just how much of the Partridge Family he truly remembers...after all, he was only 11 when it started. Did he keep some kind of detailed diary, complete with acid observations about his co-stars? His seeming total recall 30 years later is truly astonishing, especially considering the chronic emotional problems he's had ever since, including heavy drug and alcohol abuse. A far more interesting movie would have been "The Danny Bonaduce Story" written by an uninvolved party, which covers his life from the Partridge Family up to the present. Talk about an expose!

Unlike many posters, I not only watched the Partridge Family TV show both originally and in reruns, but have followed books, articles and interviews on it ever since. It's not surprising that the producers of the original show, men like Bob Claver, Bernie Schwartz, Paul Witt, and Mel Swope, all "steared clear" of this movie, since much of what they've said in interviews over the years seem at odds with Danny's version of events. I think what annoyed me most was the total trashing of poor little Jeremy Gelbwaks, the first actor to portray Chris Partridge. By everyone's admission, Danny and Jeremy simply didn't get along, yet Danny practically portrays him as the anti-Christ! And from what I've heard from the original producers, Danny outright lied in this screenplay about the reasons Jeremy left after one season. The poor kid got a bum-rap back in 1971 with wild and speculative rumors about his leaving; Danny sees fit to re-hash it all for the sake of a fast buck.

P.S. Just to set the record straight, Jeremy WASN'T disliked by the cast and crew (except Danny and David Cassidy), but his MOTHER sure was! She was so annoying and caused so many complaints that Executive Producer Bob Claver was considering not renewing Jeremy's contract, rather than having to deal with her for another season. Fortuitously, right after the end of the 1st season Jeremy's dad got a lucrative offer through his employer to transfer to Virginia, and took it, thus saving them from any embarrassing "showdown" with the producers over Jeremy's future on the show.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Bad history, bad movie-making

[2/10 · 15 January 2007]

With a big-budget "epic" like this one, where to begin? First is the excruciatingly long running-time; I was starting to squirm in my seat before the attack on Pearl Harbor even commenced. Next is a ridiculous (and ultimately VERY tedious) love-triangle; I guess the producers thought the only way they could sell "history" to the public was to wrap it around a romance story. Unfortunately for them, the boring romance angle only serves to turn-off action-movie buffs!

But the biggest objection to this film was what it tries to pass-off as history. The same pilot, Ben Affleck, is involved in THREE of the biggest events of WWII -- the Battle of Britian, the Pearl Harbor Raid, and the Doolittle Raid? What's the odds on that happening? 25 million to one??? And SINCE WHEN were hot-shot fighter pilots recruited by Jimmy Doolittle to pilot large B-25 bombers off the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier? Was there anything in the plot that even hinted that Ben and buddy Josh had ever been NEAR a bomber before? As any old combat pilot will tell you, a bomber pilot was one breed, and a fighter pilot a whole other breed. (Also, who thought of casting spoiled little brat Alec Baldwin, of all people, as Colonel Jimmy Doolittle? A laughable decision; I'll stick with Spencer Tracy in "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo"!)

As for the Pearl Harbor raid itself, a few good computer-generated shots of the battleship Oklahoma capsizing do not make up for truly comic-book scenes of our heroes dogfighting Japanese planes. First we're treated to Ben, Josh and their crews shooting down enemy planes from the ground. Next we see Ben & Josh in the air and working with their ground crews over the radio to lead the Japanese into veritable shooting galleries of bullets. I'll bet real 1941-era pilots would of loved to have had the kind of air-ground coordination this movie shows. Next we see our heroic pair dodging in-between hangers, about 10 feet off the ground! Then they wander out over battleship row and fight among the ship's masts. But the biggest "groaner" is when they "play chicken" and lead four Japanese planes to crash with one another! This is truly Hollywood at it's worst. (Oh, and corny dialog like Josh saying over the phone as the first bombs drop, "I think World War Two just started!" Another groaner).

Not only does our dynamic duo almost completely foil the whole Japanese attack with their magnificent flying, but upon landing they show up at girlfriend Kate's hospital to donate blood. As as if that weren't enough, then they volunteer to go out to battleship row and help rescue sailors trapped in the upturned Oklahoma! Whew! Instead of getting a medal, these two should have been nominated for sainthood.

Finally at the end of the picture, when they crash-land in China after the Doolittle Raid, our brave boys single-handedly destroy a whole Japanese platoon. (But, alas, Josh is mortally wounded in the process... sniff sniff.) Oh well, that neatly wraps up the love-triangle!

I remember the howls of anger from veterans when this travesty of a movie came out -- once I saw it I couldn't blame them. Stick with 1970's "Tora Tora Tora" if you want a realistic depiction of that momentous event.

The Shining (1980)

Most overrated movie of the past 30 years

[5/10 · 15 January 2007]

What's the big attraction of this film? Have the folks who rate this movie so highly ever even READ the Stephen King novel upon which it's supposedly based? Kubrick made so many crucial changes that you can't claim this movie was a true adaptation. I'm not saying it was a bad movie, or that it didn't have some good moments, but as an adaptation of one of the great horror novels it was most disappointing. Kubrick deserved every "brickbat" that King has thrown his way, and more -- one can only imagine the horror King must have felt upon seeing his book so thoroughly mangled. Yes, Kubrick was good on such efforts as "2001" "Dr Strangelove" and "Paths of Glory", but he simply had no feel for a movie about the supernatural. We'll never know just what kind of classic a director like Robert "The Haunting" Wise would have done with this material.

How does this movie fail? Let us count the ways: 1) Kubrick seemed to go out of his way to shoot "against type" for a scary movie. There's no feel of a 100 year old hotel; his Overlook is as pedestian as a Holiday Inn in Phoenix. He harshly over-lights many scenes, which dissipates the scariness, and is down-right ANNOYING. An old hotel up in the mountains during winter SHOULD be dark and foreboding! 2) Shelley Duvall is totally miscast. She was fine for cartoon-come-to-life Olive Oil, but is clearly out of her depth in this one; she can't register any emotion convincingly, and seems to be reading her lines off cue cards. Some of her acting is so bad it's laughable, such as the scene where Jack menacingly backs her across the lobby to the stairwell; Nicholson's good acting only serves to make her performance all the more embarrassing and excruciating. You're practically rooting for Jack to grab that bat and beat her brains in. Add to her miserable performance a frumpy, clown-like wardrobe & stringy hair that hangs in her face, and you get a pathetic caricature of King's Wendy. 3) Bad casting of Stuart Ullman and Dick Halloran. In the novel, Ullman was a bastard and there was a mutual dislike between him and Jack. In the movie, he's played by Barry Nelson, and comes off as affable as Ozzie Nelson! Why Kubrick cut this tension out of the script is a mystery. And Scatman Crothers as Halloran? Just didn't work. Reading the book I got a mental image of Ossie Davis or James Earl Jones, both accomplished actors who could've brought some meat to this part. Scatman's Halloran is so inconsequential that we hardly miss him when Kubrick decides to add alittle gore and has him axed to death (another unfortunate departure from the book). 4) Unknown Danny Lloyd as Danny was a very poor casting decision. Not only couldn't this kid act, but he brought none of the crucial sympathy to what was undoubtedly the book's central character. King's Danny was such a likable, charming little boy that King actually changed the ending of the book from what he'd originally intended -- to have Jack kill Danny. But the screen Danny is so colorless that he becomes a zombie, and like Wendy, you don't care if he lives or dies. Instead of true para-psychological abilities, you feel he's simply a weirdo who likes to growl while moving his fingers. (Again, another unfortunate departure from the book...couldn't Kubrick of had "Tony" manifest himself in visions, as King had? Can you blame them for not taking this silly hand-puppet act seriously?). 5) Kubrick downplays the supernatural aspect of the Overlook, instead concentrating on Jack's decent into madness. This change of focus, more than anything, show's Kubrick's lack of feel for a supernatural thriller. Instead of being a weak and flawed man who becomes the helpless pawn of the evil hotel, Jack's behavior could be ascribed to destructive psychological tendencies which are accentuated by "cabin fever". 6) Too many plot changes from the book to mention, but the substitution of an inert hedge-maze for moving (and menacing) topiary animals is a big one. True, the level of special effects in 1980 would have posed a problem, but I believe an imaginative director and crew could have pulled it off. Changing the climax from the Jack-Danny confrontation up on the 3rd floor to the characters running around the maze -- and most incredibly, Jack never actually CATCHES UP with Danny -- was a cheat, pure and simple. It robbed the movie of the necessary emotional climax, as well as the profound point to which everything in the book was moving towards. Since Kubrick rewrote the ending so heavily, including omitting the attack on Wendy, he could think of nothing better for her to do at this time then to have her wander about the Overlook, stumbling upon one silly spook-show after another. This device was certainly pointless and a cheap trick.

The only reason I give "The Shining" even a "5" rating is for the admittedly bravura performance of Jack Nicholson. While his performance during the first half of the movie is stilted, he does make up for it during the second half. In fact, without his contribution, this movie would have been a long-forgotten flop. Stephen King's miniseries "The Shining", while not without it's problems, did fix a lot of what Kubrick botched. The miniseries certainly deserves the praise that's been mistakenly lavished on Kubrick's version.