pninson Reviews

Under the Skin (I) (2013)

A major disappointment

[3/10 · 20 July 2014]

Michel Faber's novel, "Under the Skin", is a remarkable book. There is nothing else quite like it. Naturally I was looking forward to seeing a film adaptation.

Of course I expected to be disappointed. But I didn't expect to be quite so bored. While there are some interesting bits here and there, there's no tension, and the camera lingers forever on many shots. I watched this on Amazon streaming, and there were several times when I thought the connection had stopped working.

If I hadn't read the book, I would have had almost no idea what was happening. The movie does not really adapt the book, just borrows part of the basic premise, but even so I got the overall idea. But while the book presented a bizarre, fascinating mystery that unfolded continuously, with the reader never knowing what lurks around the next corner, the movie is empty of surprises and goes nowhere.

I highly recommend the book; but see the movie first. That way you won't be disappointed.

Arrow (2012–2020)

Astoundingly Bad

[1/10 · 2 April 2014]

I've watched four or five episodes of this because my roommate says it's "the best show ever." I can't imagine what he finds entertaining about this. It's standard-issue boilerplate network TV, chock-full of cookie-cutter dialogue, wooden acting (especially by the lead actor), stock situations you'd expect to see in any adventure show ... in fact I would say this is one of the worst shows I've ever seen.

Frankly, I'd rather balance my checkbook or work on my income tax than sit through another 30 minutes of this pitiful excuse for a show. In fact, my roommate is watching it now, while I've found refuge in my office to ... ah, balance my checkbook. Trust me, it's far more entertaining than "Arrow."

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Deja Vu All Over Again

[3/10 · 29 January 2012]

Through most of this excruciatingly dull picture, I felt like I had seen this movie before. It brings to mind such duds as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. It started off well but quickly became tedious. The same old stuff I've seen in a dozen superhero movies.

Of the three Marvel adaptations released this year, I liked this one the least. Thor was fun; X-Men First Class was a bit overlong but not bad; but this one was tough to sit through. I played a couple of games of Words with Friends while I was watching, and was really glad I didn't get stuck in a theater with this one.

Nice try, I guess, but the story doesn't engage your emotions on any level and is strictly by the numbers. If you haven't seen this yet ... you probably already have.

That Forsyte Woman (1949)

Watchable Hollywood Version

[6/10 · 30 September 2010]

I originally saw this in the early 70s, after having seen THE FORSYTE SAGA on TV, and reading the first three books. Shoehorning two books' worth of story into a two-hour movie makes mincemeat out of the plot, but the essential details are preserved.

It was a crackup for me to see Robert Young, then widely known as Marcus Welby M.D. I was used to seeing him as an old man; but then he looks old for the part anyway, and overacts to compensate for it.

However, Errol Flynn is excellent as Soames, and Walter Pidgeon brings the necessary gravitas to the role of Jolyon. Harry Davenport is fine as Old Jolyon, although I can't quite erase the image of Dr. Meade from Gone With the Wind.

It's not a very good adaptation of Galsworthy's story, but on its own merits, it's well acted and edited, with handsome production design and nice pacing. It's fun to watch just to compare it with the more successful TV version.

300 (2006)

Knuckle-headed entertainment

[4/10 · 1 April 2010]

If I were to rate this movie for its intelligence, I'd give it a 1. The dialogue is cookie-cutter, overwrought and insipid. The performances are largely one-note and the constant pounding of the theme that war is great, war is glorious, and violence is bloodless gets pretty annoying after a while.

I'm not a stickler for historical accuracy --- I'd rather that the movie be entertaining. However, 300 has almost no basis in reality and clings to its comic-book origins with melodramatic ferocity. Its think level is close to zero.

Having said all that, this is still an entertaining and visually dazzling action film, with an eerie, otherworldly look that is oddly captivating. Gerald Butler and Harry Hamlin do all that can be asked of an actor (I'd say Hamlin's performance here is more convincing than his Perseus in CLASH OF THE TITANS, but that's not saying much).

Based on its entertainment level, I give this a six, which offsets the annoyance of listening to all the pompous chest-beating and infantile dialogue.

For my money, the original film, THE 300 SPARTANS, is a much more interesting picture. At least it gives you some idea of what actually happened (according to Herodotus, anyway) and it doesn't take itself so doggone seriously. Watching 300 is like being in Basic Training with a Marine drill instructor screaming at you.

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984)

Excruciatingly boring

[1/10 · 22 January 2010]

This a love it or hate cult film. Either you force your date to sit through it, or your date forces you to sit through it. Perhaps, if you're lucky, you will both hate it or you will both love it. The last person I dated loved it, and of the handful of uninteresting films I sat through for her sake, this took the cake. 103 grueling minutes of stupid, unfunny jokes, nonsensical plot, this is an incoherent, muddled collage of random non sequiturs, and is painful to sit through. This is the kind of movie that makes you want to get up and wash the dishes, just for a little excitement. Dull beyond belief.

And the worst I did to her was make her watch ROCK AND ROLL HIGH SCHOOL.

Great Expectations (1981)

The Whole Story

[7/10 · 28 June 2009]

This is the first adaptation of "Great Expectations" that covers the entire book. Over 12 30-minute episodes, Dickens' novel is faithfully transferred to the screen.

The only downside to this is that the novel does ramble a bit in places and therefore, so does this series. There are a few superfluous characters and sub-plots, so it's a little slow and talky in places. On the other hand, you do get the richness of detail that is missing from theatrical productions and some of the other television versions.

The best thing about this production is that Estella is portrayed perfectly. Both Patsy Kensit, who plays the young Estella, and Sarah-Jane Varley, who plays the adult part, portray her exactly as I pictured her when I read the novel all those years ago. It's not so much a matter of how the actresses look, but how the part is written and how the roles are performed.

Joan Hickson's Miss Havisham is definitive.

I'd recommend this highly to any fan of the novel. It's long, but it's well worth it to have the whole story rather than a condensed version.

Star Trek (2009)

Entertaining, but silly

[6/10 · 28 May 2009]

The new Star Trek film is entertaining and enjoyable, as long as you don't pay too much attention to the gaping holes in plot logic. For the most part, the early versions of all the familiar characters are well cast, with the notable exception of the ultra-geeky Chekhov, whose fake Russian accent is atrocious.

Chris Pine turns in a solid performance as the young Jim Kirk, perhaps the most demanding role. He's a three-dimensional, believable character, although he's asked to be even more of a superhero than he was in the original series. Let's assume that the older Kirk was tempered by experience and let it go at that.

It took me a while to stop thinking of Zachary Quinto as Sylar; he can't quite keep the creepiness out of his voice. But he looks the part of Spock, who naturally can't be expected to have the warmth that the older character projects.

Nice to Sam Neill as Christopher Pike.

The major weakness of the film is its use of shaky-cam/quick editing. As in the Bourne sequels and the last James Bond films, the action sequences are virtually incomprehensible. You get a general idea of what's happening, but it all flashes at you so fast most of it is a blur.

The plot won't stand up to much scrutiny. A renegade Romulan from the future blames the older Spock for the destruction of his planet, and seeks revenge not only on the planet Vulcan but Earth. It seems odd that, having come back in time, he doesn't try to alter events to save his world, but he's not playing with a full deck. A bigger problem is that he's a bland, uninteresting villain with little screen presence, and as little screen time. His ship is much scarier than he is.

What will likely be most controversial is the retconning --- retroactive continuity. This means changing the backstory from earlier shows and films. And this film takes it all the way: when the story is done, none of the original ST episodes will ever happen. There will be no visit to Talos IV for Captain Pike; no visit to Vulcan for Spock to deal with his "pon farr." (And what are Vulcans supposed to do about that now, anyway?) We're left with a brand new parallel world, presumably so sequels can be made without having to mesh with previous continuity. This is something new; it's a bit like Kirk's solution to the Kobyashi Maru simulation ("it had the virtue of never having been tried".) A fun film, likely to frustrate true believers in its utter disrespect for continuity, but enjoyable enough for those willing to take it at face value.

Battlestar Galactica: Hero (2006) Season 3, Episode 8

By the numbers

[9 March 2009]

To all the people who laud BSG as great television, as superb drama that is superior to traditional SF, I present this lame, supremely unoriginal episode as an example of why I disagree.

There is not a shred of plot or characterization in this episode that hasn't been done a dozen times before, on TV and in film. The military commander sacrifices his friend, who survives, and agonizes over his decision. And of course the friend, who escapes from the enemy, is actually allowed to escape to cause dissension and doubt in the ranks.

Despite the welcome appearance of Carl Lumbly, who I haven't seen since "Alias", this plodding and predictable episode is a prime example of why I'm unable to stay interested in BSG for any length of time. Periodically there is a good episode, but then they keep turning out photocopied crap like this, and the thought of watching another episode fills me with dread.

A Sight for Sore Eyes (2003)

Cold, Remote but Entertaining

[6/10 · 27 February 2009]

This French adaptation of the Ruth Rendell novel "A Sight for Sore Eyes" is perhaps a bit pretentious and tries too hard to be "arty." While it follows the plot of the novel fairly closely, the director is more concerned with the look and feel of the film, unusual camera angles, moody, atmospheric photography, and suspenseful music.

The real contrast between the book and the movie is that in the book, you get a clear explanation of who the characters are and how they got that way. The movie dispenses with this almost completely, so you only see the characters as they are, with one or two very brief hints about their backgrounds. If you don't know the plot from the book, you may have a hard time sorting out who's who, especially in the first 20 minutes or so.

However, if you don't mind a movie in which there are mostly unappealing characters, and there's a glacial coolness to the way the story is told, showing very little sympathy for most of the characters, this is a reasonably entertaining thriller. As a fan of the book, I of course prefer Rendell's story, with its vivid depiction of strange characters, and I wouldn't rate this as an especially good adaptation. On its own merits, it works well enough.

According to the DVD, the French critics raved about this one; there are several quotes comparing the director to Hitchcock and praising the film in very fulsome language. However, the movie hasn't been released in the US, so you'll need a region-free player if you want to see it.

The Dark Knight (2008)

A Major Disappointment

[3/10 · 3 January 2009]

This movie was so wildly praised by critics and fans alike that it was hard not to have somewhat diminished expectations. It can't be *that* great, right? Right.

I can't say this is a bad movie, just not a very interesting one. It begins promisingly with a superbly executed set piece, with the Joker staging a daring bank robbery. This is a very nicely done action sequence, and Heath Ledger's Joker does indeed live up to the hype. It's a genuinely strange characterization, and the story built around it should work.

After that, the movie starts to drag. There are far too many long, talky sequences, followed by the usual slam-bang action scenes that are shot from a distance so you can't see what's really going on. What's really missing from the action is any sense of a story; there's just more of the same that you usually see in a superhero picture. Been there, done that.

Another fatal mistake is one that happens far too often: too many villains. This was a major problem with the 90s Batman films: you have to squeeze the Penguin and Catwoman and Christopher Walken into one film, with no time left for anything like character development. In this movie, the focus is on the Joker, but that's not enough: we have Two-Face into the mix (who only becomes Two-Face at the two-hour mark, leaving only a short time for him to be dispatched by our hero).

Two-Face was my favorite of the old Batman Rogues Gallery, and he deserved a story all his own. Throwing him in as an afterthought to the Joker (particularly when Ledger's scenery chewing overshadows everything else in the picture, including Batman) both makes the film far too long, and blunts its impact.

Lost somewhere in all this is Batman, who almost seems absent from the picture. Although he has to make a tragic choice, there seems to be no character development, and Bale's performance is practically phoned in. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman contribute their customary gravitas, but again this just adds to the extreme length of the picture.

Batman Begins was a strong picture, and I'm puzzled as to what I'm missing here. I saw this on Blu-Ray and found myself reaching for the remote every ten minutes or so, to see how much longer I was going to have to watch this. I finally hit Stop by accident at 2 hrs., but decided to just let it go. This movie failed to engage my interest on any level and I just wanted it to end.

The X Files: I Want to Believe (2008)

Tedious and dull

[2/10 · 18 December 2008]

Six years after The X-Files went off the air, and ten years after the first big-screen film, X-Files jumped on the nostalgia bandwagon and produced this slow-moving, extremely dull update.

Several years have gone by. Scully has left the FBI and is practicing medicine at a Catholic hospital. Mulder is wanted by the FBI (but seems very easy to find; apparently he and Scully are living together). The FBI asks Mulder to consult on a case involving a missing agent; if he cooperates, all charges will be dropped. He spends a couple of minutes saying no; then gazes momentarily at a picture of his sister and changes his mind.

That's the first ten minutes, and it's already boring at that point. One expects that the story will gather steam, but it never really does, bouncing between the search for the missing agent, Scully's struggle to get special treatment for a young patient, and a lot of heavy, hand-wringing philosophizing that drags the picture down. This movie wants to be taken seriously, and that's one of the reasons it fails so thoroughly.

Now that Scully and Mulder have settled into a comfortable intimate relationship, the tension and interplay between them is gone, along with the humor that sprang from it. One doesn't think of the X-Files as a funny show, but humor was an important ingredient in the mix. The other thing that's missing is the atmospherics that made the X-Files scary and compelling. The story plods along numbly, and the science fiction plot contains nothing new.

Not only does this movie lack the elements that made the TV series so enjoyable, it's just badly done. The pacing and timing are off from the very beginning, and it never becomes compelling. I'm glad I didn't get stuck in a theater with this one; it was something of an effort to sit through it at home.

Series fans will want to check it out for themselves, of course; but I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. It just made me want to go back and watch a few episodes of the series instead.

Boston Legal (2004–2008)

More than just another lawyer show

[6/10 · 2 September 2008]

Boston Legal is a somewhat uneasy mix of comedy and drama. On the surface, it's just another lawyer show. Attorneys get away with misconduct that is not only unethical but criminal. The defense and the prosecution present their cases at the same time. Prosecutors get to give their closing arguments last. And, like Grey's Anatomy, far too much time is spent on who's sleeping with whom, as the hot young female lawyers drool over the hot young male lawyers, and vice versa.

Still, this is an enjoyable show, for two reasons. William Shatner gives the finest performance of his career as Denny Crane, a partner in the firm who was once a giant in the profession, but is now aging, having difficulty remembering, unsure of himself, almost desperate to hang onto his crumbling reputation. He is easily the most compelling character on the show, and is fascinating to watch.

Very close behind him is James Spader, who plays a preposterously narcissistic and pompous young lawyer. Sometimes he's criminally negligent, sometimes he's the high-minded attorney. He struts about like a puffed-up rooster, mouthing off to his boss, to judges, and almost everyone else, in a way that would have him jailed and disbarred in real life. Spader plays this character with a deft, canny absurdity that makes Alan Shore likable in spite of his arrogance.

Rene Auberjonois is also excellent as the long-suffering senior partner, who for some reason tolerates both Denny Crane's decaying ability to perform his job, and Alan Shore's brash defiance of his instructions (not to mention the law).

Sometimes this show leans too heavily on the absurd to be fully likable (and it's almost never believable) but so far, I'm enjoying it nonetheless.

25x5: The Continuing Adventures of the Rolling Stones (1989 TV Movie)

The Best Stones Documentary to Date

[10/10 · 14 August 2008]

This excellent film, which has yet to see a DVD release, is so far the best documentary about the evolution of the Rolling Stones. This piece focuses more on the history of the band; not only its musical development, but the more sensational episodes in the personal lives of its members. The story of the Stones in their early days, before they settled down to become elder statesmen, is very much the story of the 60s. Like the Beatles, the Stones became popular before the hippies entered the scene, but in many ways anticipated them and absorbed those trends.

This 1989 release obviously contains no new information about the Stones' later years, but you're not really missing anything. The Stones have continued to produce good music, but they've become professionals who no longer make headlines for "bad-boy behavior." It's a very professional, brilliantly edited piece, and I highly recommend it to any Stones fan. Unfortunately you'll have to look for a tape or laserdisc on ebay, as the Stones seemingly have no interest in releasing video product of any kind. There are several concert discs which are allowed to go out of print almost immediately, and the last two have been Best Buy exclusives, alienating many retailers and fans.

If you can find it, this is the one to see.

Prison Break (2005–2017)

As good as it gets

[8/10 · 30 July 2008]

This may very well be the best TV series I've ever seen, at least in terms of riveting suspense. It's not a high-quality serious drama, like THE SOPRANOS or THE WIRE. It's not a study of police corruption, like THE SHIELD. I don't know if will become an iconic cult show, like Star Trek or the X-Files. But nothing beats PRISON BREAK for sheer nail-biting suspense.

The basic setup is far-fetched but simple. Structural engineer Michael Scofield robs a bank and lets himself be caught, so he can break his brother out of prison. Lincoln, his brother, has been sentenced to death and has run out of appeals.

I've just started Season Two. The only problem with Season One is that after watching a couple of episodes, nothing else satisfied. I was renting the series and waiting a couple of days between discs was torture. Even LOST didn't get me addicted that quickly or that deeply. I can't imagine waiting one week between episodes, as I'll have to once I get caught up to the current season.

I'm still not sure how the writers can stretch out this premise for four season, but so far they haven't run out of surprises. While there are plenty of coincidences, plot holes, and the occasional clichéd situation, none of those things matter because the characters are well realized, the drama is taut, and the suspense never lets up.

This may not be prestigious drama like SIX FEET UNDER or THE SOPRANOS, but when it comes to rip-snorting action entertainment, there's nothing that comes close.

If you haven't watched it, I strongly recommend not reading any posts on this board until you're caught up. I guarantee things will happen that you will not see coming.

Cloverfield (2008)

It Almost Works

[4/10 · 20 July 2008]

The first 17 minutes of this movie are excruciatingly dull. After the first three minutes I was leafing through a magazine (I rented this, of course). There's a long party scene, but this is no GODFATHER or DEER HUNTER. A group of 20-somethings are holding a going-away party for a friend, and there's interminable footage of people gossiping and behaving normally. This is as interesting as watching your coat hang on the wall.

Finally, there's a big boom, and the action starts. The gimmick is that the guy videotaping the party keeps the video going, even when he's running for his life. Not only is this hard to swallow, but the camera zooms all over the place, or sits tilted to one side. The idea is obviously a gonzo monster movie, a you-are-there cross between GODZILLA and THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.

There are moments when this comes off, or almost comes off. You don't get a very good luck at the monster, or the little monsters that it generates. Nothing is explained, which I consider a plus; since none of the characters know what's happening, the audience doesn't need to know either. We're supposed to share in the characters' confusion and panic.

The reason it doesn't really work is that the characters are bland and vapid, the cinema verité effect of the wildly gyrating camera is more annoying than anything else, and there's nothing original in the script or the plot. It's routine fare.

It's OK for killing 90 minutes on a slow afternoon, but I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who managed to sit through this in a theater. This is definitely rental fodder.

Ruth Rendell Mysteries: Harm Done (2000) Season 12, Episode 1

A Rather Cursory Adaptation

[5/10 · 19 July 2008]

This last installment in the Inspector Wexford series is enjoyable enough on its own merits, but falls far short of the depth and texture of the novel. The entire film runs about 100 minutes; the previous two, SIMISOLA and ROAD RAGE, were shown in three parts totalling 150 minutes. Not only is a lot left out of the story, but it feels condensed and shows the marks of heavy editing. It's possible that the video version contains an incomplete cut; it certainly looks that way.

George Baker turns in his usual stalwart performance as Inspector Wexford. In this story, for the first time, Wexford is cantankerous, cranky and crotchety, blowing his stack at subordinates (including his close friend and assistant, Mike Burden). This does not occur in the novel, and is very out of character for Wexford. However, the story, which deals primarily with a domestic violence situation, in which Wexford is unable to interfere as the victim will not bring charges, accounts perhaps for his atypical behavior.

Rendell's novel has been criticized by fans for not offering a truly satisfying mystery, but rather a series of two or three thematically related stories that don't fit together in a satisfying whole. The film does follow the book closely enough to be open to the same complaint; it's ultimately more a novel of contemporary mores than a genuine mystery.

I've read the book twice and enjoyed it even more the second time through, so while the criticism is legitimate the book is still a terrific read, with a wealth of fascinating characters and some fascinating ideas. Enough of this comes through in the film to make it worth watching, but it's not as good as previous entries in the series. Wexford fans will want to see it, but others may find it less than engrossing.

Meet Joe Black (1998)

A film to wash dishes by

[1/10 · 9 July 2008]

This lumbering, interminable, terminally dumb romantic comedy is the kind of excruciatingly dull movie that makes washing the dishes seem exciting by comparison. I did watch it all the way through but I cleaned up the living room while I was waiting for it to end.

In this sappy story, Death becomes human, and realizes that being human is better than being a ... whatever Death personified actually is. And it takes three full hours to play this out. It's pretty enough, especially if you like Brad Pitt, but it's hardly interesting or thought-provoking in any respect.

If you watch this on the kitchen TV while washing the dishes or mopping the floor, you might find it enough of a distraction to make it worth your while. Otherwise, I'd give it a pass.

Rambo (2008)

By the numbers

[4/10 · 1 July 2008]

Stallone's return as superhero Rambo follows the tried-and-true pattern of the generic action film. Rambo is hiding out in Thailand, brooding. A group of medical missionaries, who want to take supplies to rebels in Burma, ask him to take them upriver. Of course he says no. Fortunately, there's a hot babe who goes back to talk to him, and after she bats her eyelashes at him a few times, of course he says yes.

You can probably guess what happens next. The missionaries are dropped off, and before you can say KABOOM, they're in trouble, and our hero returns to the rescue. On the way there's the usual pious missionary claiming that violence is not the answer, and of course Rambo doesn't see it that way. (What would be the point of a Rambo movie where he sits around and gets in touch with his feelings?) It's all over and done with in about 90 minutes, giving action fans a quick fix of the usual. There are two distinctive things about this movie, however. One of the them is an apparently honest attempt by Stallone to dramatize the situation in Burma (Myanmar). The Burmese military are the most repulsive villains you can imagine, and from the opening frames, you'll see a lot of very unpleasant and convincing violence, as helpless men, women and children are tortured and massacred.

When the battles begin, the violence becomes extremely gory, to the extent that it's almost cartoonish. It's probably an attempt to be more realistic; in action films, people usually get shot and obediently fall over. Here, their heads blow off with huge gouts of blood and body parts go flying.

Fans of the earlier films will probably enjoy this one. It's an action picture after all, not HENRY IV PART I, and there's plenty of action. But there's really nothing new here; it's a cookie cutter plot, the cinematic equivalent of empty calories.

Poirot: The Mystery of the Blue Train (2005) Season 10, Episode 1

Way below par

[4/10 · 16 June 2008]

This is one of the weakest episodes in the long-running Poirot series. I read the novel a few months ago and this film makes an absolute hash of the plot. Most of the films rearrange things and leave out subsidiary characters, and I accept these changes as necessary due to time constraints and the need for dramatic cinematic action.

Usually they don't affect the core of the story, but in this installment the script writers have essentially substituted a plot of their own. Unfortunately, it's not as good as Agatha Christie's. A prolific writer, Christie nonetheless had good instincts for avoiding repetitiousness. She knew she was to some extent a formula writer but was able to push the boundaries of that formula as far as it could go.

This story, with its muddle of added and changed characters, is pure formula. It hits all the familiar notes, but there's nothing fresh or original about the story. You've seen it all before. Suchet of course is spot on as always, but the series is showing its age here.

The editing is strange as well, with numerous rapid fadeouts that appear to be for TV commercial breaks; but there are too many of them. It's like watching an old movie on TV when they chop bits off so they can rush to commercial. It's disconcerting to see this on a feature-length DVD.

This is a by-the-numbers production that's way below par for this series. I'd recommend this for hard-core fans only.

Sudden Impact (1983)

Solid, but ultimately a downer

[6/10 · 12 June 2008]

After a seven-year gap, Clint Eastwood returns as Dirty Harry. A lot's changed in the meantime; not only has Eastwood aged noticeably (the iconic smirk that he carried over from his spaghetti Western days has mostly disappeared) but the times have changed. The first three films are deeply rooted in the seventies, when reaction to the liberal reforms of the sixties was at its height.

The first three films are violent action flicks, but also have a certain humor that's almost entirely lacking here. The earlier films had witty dialogue and good character chemistry; SUDDEN IMPACT falls back on farting dog jokes. But mostly there's no humor; it's a very dark, brutally violent story, and while it's a well made action flick, it's not really what I'd call a fun movie. The body count is extremely high, and we get constant flashbacks to a repulsive gang rape scene. I wouldn't say it's overdone, but it's enough to make you feel slightly ill.

Still, Harry rides to victory, Eastwood is as solid as ever, and there are a couple of set pieces that are ultimately worth the price of admission. Sondra Locke does well in a role that's probably not easy to play, and Bradford Dillman is once again a splendid caricature of the pencil-pushing bureaucrat.

This is not one I'd want to watch too often, but it's not terrible; just somewhat depressing.

Gladiator (2000)

A solid spectacular

[7/10 · 21 May 2008]

I grew up in the heyday of the sword-and-sandal spectaculars; I was ten years old when THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE was released. That film bombed at the box office and brought down a studio, and the genre died.

It wasn't until GLADIATOR hit the screens that the old-fashioned historical epic was revived. The story is set at the same time as FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE and features some of the same historical characters. The basic plot, however, is quite different, and of course film technology has changed.

FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE featured ruinously expensive sets; GLADIATOR was able to recreate ancient Rome with computer generated visuals. There's a certain stiffness to CGI that you don't see in the older films, but it still produces a level of detail that would otherwise be impossible. The Colosseum comes to vivid life, and the production design creates a decadent look reminiscent of FELLINI SATYRICON.

The story is fairly simple; one might call it WALKING TALL, Roman style. The wise emperor Marcus Aurelius intends to name the general Maximus as his successor, but his son Commodus has other ideas. Maximus narrowly escapes assassination, but returns home to find his family murdered by Commodus, now Emperor.

The film works because Russell Crowe's performance makes you believe in his character. Maximus is a generic hero, but Crowe breathes life into him and brings out dimensions that aren't in the script. A lesser actor could have made this a very dull film indeed.

Supporting performances by the priceless Derek Jacobi, Oliver Reed, and Djimon Honsou round out the excellent cast.

Where the film falters is in Joaquin Phoenix's characterization of the Emperor Commodus. He is not lethal, threatening, or even interestingly unbalanced. He is a crybaby, a wimp who pouts and sniffles in every scene. FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE suffers from a terrible performance by Stephen Boyd in the lead role; GLADIATOR has the opposite problem: a dull, whiny villain. The problem is more the script than the actor, but Phoenix is unable to find an interesting dimension and ultimately is only annoying. It's easy to believe Maximus can swat him aside like a fly.

As a result, the last twenty minutes or so are anticlimactic. The final sequence is effective, however, and again imbues the heroic Maximus with a believably human dimension.

It's unfortunate that the success of GLADIATOR didn't lead to a revival of the genre. TROY did not do great box office in 2004, and that may have made the Hollywood execs skittish again. Too bad. GLADIATOR was a welcome respite from endless summer sequels and costumed superhero films, and it's a worthy successor to the classics like EL CID and SPARTACUS.

The Sun Also Rises (1957)

A noble effort

[6/10 · 1 May 2008]

Filming Hemingway's introspective, brooding novel "The Sun Also Rises" was a major challenge. Much of the power of Hemingway's story stems from what is not said, what is left out, what is suggested or only hinted at.

In Virginia Woolf's novel "To The Lighthouse", the author goes inside everyone's mind and tells you exactly what all the characters are thinking. "The Sun Also Rises" is the opposite: you read what the characters say to each other and do in public, but even Jake Barnes, the narrator and central character, leaves most of his feelings unspoken. He pushes them aside and tries to soldier on in spite of them.

This is obviously not something that can work on screen. However, this A-list adaptation succeeds, up to a point, in bringing the novel to life without making too much explicit. Although some of the performers are miscast and are much older than the characters in the book, there are solid performances all around.

Those who haven't read the book may find this film slow and rambling. This is not a tightly plotted story; it's more of a character study, as well as a look at a time and place where people were disillusioned and living on the edge of hope. The film does compensate for the loose narrative with spectacular sequences of bullfighting and the running of the bulls at Pamplona.

I originally saw this film in 1971 on a small black and white TV with commercial breaks; I may have even missed the first few minutes. It's a real treat to have the color widescreen Cinemascope presentation available on DVD. Despite its weaknesses, I do like this picture and it really needs a good widescreen transfer to fully appreciate it.

Ruth Rendell Mysteries: Going Wrong: Part 1 (1998) Season 11, Episode 1

One of Rendell's Best

[9/10 · 17 April 2008]

This is a surprisingly good adaptation of Ruth Rendell's 1990 novel, "Going Wrong." Many of the shows in the "Ruth Rendell Mysteries" series are mediocre and make several unnecessary changes to the story, but this film puts the story on screen. There are a few details that are compressed, but nothing significant. In fact, there's one detail at the end that actually makes a bit more sense than the book.

Not really a mystery, "Going Wrong" is a study of obsessive love, a theme that is familiar territory to Ruth Rendell. Guy Curran is a street kid who got rich dealing drugs and is now a legitimate, wealthy businessmen. He still carries a torch for his teenage sweetheart Leonora, a middle-class girl who played at being a street kid but now has grown up and has broken if off with Guy.

But she still agrees to have lunch with him every Saturday, and allows him to call her every day. Guy believes that she still loves him and will take him back ... then he sees her in the company of a gentleman friend.

With echoes of "The Great Gatsby", this is classic Rendell, and the film features excellent performances by the entire cast.

Unfortunately this is not available on Region 1 DVD. Currently it's sold in Region 2 as part of a boxed set, "The Best of the Ruth Rendell Mysteries", which includes several other installments in the series.

If you have a Region 2 player and are a Ruth Rendell fan, I highly recommend this.

The Dead Zone (2002–2007)

Losing its focus

[6/10 · 12 April 2008]

The Dead Zone was one of my favorite Stephen King books, and I liked David Cronenberg's film. So I was delighted to find that the characters and ideas had been re-worked into a TV series with high production values, good scripts and acting.

The first two seasons held me spellbound. I watched them on DVD, so I was able to see them in widescreen with the best picture and sound. By the time I got into the third season, though, my interest was starting to fade. I was glad that the love triangle had been resolved so we could move on to something else. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much of an ongoing plot line to replace it.

I've watched the first couple of episodes of Season 4, and I have to say, the last one was downright boring. No show can hit on all thrusters all the time, but Dead Zone just isn't holding my interest. I'm not sure why, but I think it's because the characters haven't changed very much. Johnny is still the same guy he was at the beginning. The supporting cast, ditto. What the show needs to revitalize it is an arc that expands on some of the "future" plot at the end of Season 3, or some major changes in the characters.

Perhaps I'm missing something by not continuing with it, but with limited time and hundreds of films and shows I want to see, this one is on the back burner for now. It's a shame --- for a while it was one of the best shows on TV.