Change Your Image
Eric-62-2
Reviews
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Directorial Narcissism At Its Worst
This film gets points only for the fact that the special effects were groundbreaking for their time and helped pave the way for what we saw in science fiction efforts of the 70s like "Space 1999", "Star Wars" etc. I recognize its significance there and will not give it a 1 of 10 for that reason alone.
But everything else about this film is a textbook case of sheer, unadulterated directorial narcissism at its worst and what's really unforgivable is how for a couple generations, a legion of elitist critics and sci-fi geeks who ought to know better have perpetuated the myth that this film is some kind of classic example of cinema when it isn't.
Part of the problem is because this is a Stanley Kubrick film. Kubrick has always been a critic's darling with just about everything he ever did. "Spartacus" gets hailed out of proportion to what it deserves because his name is on it (admittedly that film is the one that is least a product of himself). "Dr. Strangelove" carries an exaggerated reputation for being a masterpiece despite the fact its anti-Cold War subtext is so totally wrongheaded in light of the subsequent history (so many critics who love films that mock the Cold War often forget that the Cold War ended in American victory because America didn't take to heart the "you're both wrong!" philosophy such movies put forth) and that if it weren't for Peter Sellers and George C. Scott, there'd be nothing worth remembering about the film.
So now we have "2001" which gets hailed somehow as the first literate sci-fi movie ever because of its "realism". And the fact that it has ZERO story, ZERO drama and ZERO acting of note is all supposed to be irrelevant. We're supposed to think its brilliant that Kubrick spends all this time showing trained mimes in monkey makeup making grunts and reacting to this monolith followed by an endlessly boring scene of a spaceship docking set to the VERY inappropriate temp track of "The Blue Danube". (This is another complaint I have regarding the free pass that is given to Kubrick because of his darling reputation. William Wyler had to be talked out of using "Adeste Fidelis" for the Nativity scene in "Ben Hur" by Miklos Rozsa, and we know about Alfred Newman's fury over how George Stevens replaced some of his score with Handel in "The Greatest Story Ever Told". Why are we supposed to think Kubrick doing the same thing here and totally screwing Alex North is supposed to represent sound film instincts? "Blue Danube" is a piece of its time meant for 19th century Vienna and a temp track by any other name is still a temp track.)
After this lengthy bit of self-indulgence of Kubrick shouting "LOOK WHAT I DID!" at the audience, he give us a dully acted scene on the space station followed by an even more interminable scene of the journey to the moon accompanied by the same temp track. A boring conference room scene where gee, NO ONE present feels the need to speak up and complain about this quarantine that is keeping them incommunicado from their families, followed by a boring jaunt to the crater where we have to hear more about "got any ham?" "More coffee?" than any clarity or coherence about the discovery of this monolith. Kubrick and his defenders say this boring delivery is supposed to be a comment about the stagnation of the human race and why we're all supposed to evolve to the next level and become "Star-Childs" like poor Dave Bowman at the end (honestly if I were Bowman I'd be angrily telling the aliens they have no right to do this to me!)
And on it goes. The Kubrick groupies might be able to justify this and say we don't "get it" but I think we do. We just want our movies to be done with some old-fashioned clarity and coherence and not this kind of directorial narcissism that is all about the director calling attention to himself than telling a story.
Agatha Christie: Murder on the Orient Express (2006)
Suchet Does A Traditional Version Of The Story For PC
I noticed that two of the three user reviews have confused this 2006 PC game in which David Suchet provided the voice of Poirot with his 2010 BBC version which was a very dark and far-afield version of the story. While that version has been praised for daring to be different, a lot of people who view Suchet as the definitive Poirot I suspect were hoping to see him do the most famous of all Poirot stories in a traditional way. That's because for all the style and glitz of the 1974 movie and its great all star cast, time has not IMO been kind to Albert Finney's performance as Poirot, who seems far too eccentric in the role.
Those disappointed by the 2010 version will find this PC game done four years earlier fascinating because you get to hear Suchet doing a traditional version of the story. The game faithfully adapts the story and draws from the novel and the 1974 movie version but throws in some twists for the benefit of those who know the story. Rather than having the gameplayer act out Poirot, the gameplayer becomes a new character for the story, Antoinette Marceau, a representative of the line who gets Poirot aboard (she takes the place of Monsieur Bouc, who is referred to as her superiority). Because Poirot is injured when the train stopped abruptly, the player as Antoinette does all the legwork of interviewing the suspects and being forced to handle new challenges unique to the game and then report back to Poirot for guidance (Suchet BTW really shows how he is in a class of acting beyond the voice artists used for the other roles. Some of them, like the voice of Countess Andrenyi sound downright embarrassing). In the end, it is still Suchet as Poirot who gets to deliver the "classic" ending of the story to the assembled suspects (which we did not get to see him do in the BBC version) but wait, there's actually one final unexpected twist, a "third solution" that i think will surprise first-time players of the game and it in the end manages to work perfect in the context of the traditional version of the story.
The game play requires many hours to get through but it's not too difficult. I recommend it to Christie fans for the thrill of hearing Suchet do Poirot the "right" way in this story in contrast to the off-beat version of the 2010 BBC filmed adaptation.
Naked City: The One Marked Hot Gives Cold (1962)
You Have to Look Between The Lines
SPOILERS
-The sol1218 review missed the point. Duvall is in fact GUILTY of the charge. It's just that this being 1962, you couldn't depict that particular crime with the kind of explicitness that you could two decades later or come out and say so directly. Duvall isn't being arrested at the end for stealing $4.23, he's being arrested because he has committed horrific deed of child molestation. The scene of the girl's indifferent parents is 1962 code for showing us just *how* she became prey to this. And listen to Duvall's explanation of what "child molestation" means to the girl. He isn't saying, "They're accusing me of something horrible that I didn't commit" he's saying, "That's something said by people who don't understand what you and I have." If you came away thinking Duvall is innocent, you weren't paying attention.
Route 66: How Much a Pound Is Albatross? (1962)
Catwoman's True Alter Ego?
As someone who first knew Julie Newmar beacuse she'd been Catwoman, I was always struck by how despite being the definitive Catworman, the series avoided using the traditional comic book alter ego of Selina Kyle for her. That's because it would have been impossible to envision someone of Julie Newmar's stature as the dull, unassuming Selina or even the society burglar the Cat (Batman #1). It called for something else entirely but I could never figure out what.
Then one day I discovered this earlier performance of Julie's as free-spirited motorcycle riding Vicki Russell, who she played not once but twice on "Route 66", and when I was watching this episode, the lightbulb suddenly clicked that *this* character could easily have been Catwoman's true alter ego. Vicki Russell, who lost her wealthy parents and a younger brother and sister in a tragic plane crash has chosen to ignore the vast wealth left to her by her father's estate and instead live a free-spirited life of existential searching by going across the country on her motorcycle. Causing chaos in every town she goes like she does here in Tucscon, AZ but all from a goodhearted desire to just enjoy life to the fullest. She attracts the eye of Tod and Buz, and ultimately Tod ends up impressing her more and spends a night with her in the desert.
If the universes of different TV shows could connect, you could easily see Vicki becoming Catwoman *if* as time progressed, the Society she chooses to flaunt decided to crack down on her ability to enjoy life to the fullest and instead chose to restrict her freedom to live as she sees it. Maybe there, you could see the Catwoman persona as she defined it emerge in response to that by turning to crime if she wasn't allowed to "be herself" any longer. Whatever the case, it was fascinating to discover this earlier iconic performance of Julie's that on its own is the equal of what she accomplished as Catwoman. It's unfortunate that it's become more forgotten over time.
The Seekers (1979)
Corporal Rigel Gets Her Best Role!
The last of John Jakes' "Kent Family Chronicles" to be adapted for television, "The Seekers" is more faithful to its source material than "The Rebels" was though it makes two critical changes at the end. The first part is devoted to Randolph Mantooth's Abraham Kent and his tragic attempts to set himself up in the Western territory that ends in disaster and death, forcing him to return to Boston where his life ends in failure and misery. Then the second part of the drama focuses on his young son Jared and Jared's half-cousin Amanda.
One key flaw is that after experiencing the youthful Andrew Stevens as Philip Kent in "The Bastard" and "The Rebels" it is utterly impossible to think that just a decade after the events of those novels, Philip Kent is now being played by Martin Milner! (of course "The Rebels" and "The Seekers" were being shot simultaneously so actors couldn't appear in both productions, but even so they should have thought this point out better). Even harder to believe that Pete Malloy is playing Johnny Gage's father. But this is all part of how these big event miniseries worked following the success of "Roots." Stuff as many familiar names from series TV as you can and mix in some younger unknown Universal contract players as well. That accounts for two unknowns taking center stage in the latter part in Timothy Patrick Murphy as Jared, and Sarah Rush as Amanda. Sarah is no relation to Barbara Rush as an earlier reviewer asked (Though she is a distant cousin of James Dean). Sarah was a contract player who had appeared in a number of episodes of "Battlestar Galactica" as Corporal Rigel, the Bridge crewman who would call out, "Enemy closing, fifty microns" etc. "The Seekers' represented her one opportunity at a leading role, and she does a wonderful job. The platonic chemistry with Murphy's Jared is well-done and never approaches the forbidden territory that even distant blood relations shouldn't engage in (even if it was only half-cousins). And the hearttugging ending, a necessary change from the novel which ended on a downer note of Jared and Amanda still separated and not knowing where the other was (which would be resolved in the fourth novel "The Furies" which was never adapted for TV) is where Sarah really gets to shine when she makes a fateful decision on where her destiny in life lies. Those like me who enjoyed her presence on Galactica (and who still enjoy her today in all the Convention appearances she's done as well as recently reprising her role as Rigel in an audio drama with other Galactica cast members) can really appreciate what she does here. Unfortunately, "The Seekers" didn't lead to similar opportunities for Sarah and tiring of the Hollywood lifestyle she returned East after her contract expired and appeared largely in theatrical productions afterwards.
The Girl from U.N.C.L.E.: The Little John Doe Affair (1966)
One of the Best Girl From UNCLE Episodes
-This is probably my favorite episode of "The Girl From UNCLE" because for once, we get to see Stefanie Powers' April Dancer be more in charge and not be rescued by sidekick Mark Slate (who in this episode is sidelined in the hospital with a broken leg and being ministered to by nurse Thordis Brandt). April is sent to protect a "free-lance gangster" who is about to tell-all about how the global syndicate operates and he's being targeted by hit man Wally Cox. The episode treats its action scenes seriously while saving the humor for the moments of Cox as hit man calling home and showing us that this club-footed henchman is the epitome of the respectable church-going suburban family man with wife and beautiful kids. Meantime, there's a nice underplayed romance between April and Pernell Roberts as the gangster she's protecting that also works in the episode as well. Many episodes of GFU and MFU by this point tended to go out of whack in terms of too much silliness but this episode struck the right balance of humor and action and that makes it one of the best.
Twilight's Last Gleaming (1977)
A Great Novel Ruined By Political Hot Air
Walter Wager's novel "Viper Three" is a very suspenseful novel that would have made a great movie. Ex-SAC Major Lawrence Dell who is on Death Row in Montana for the wrongful conviction of his wife's murder has broken out and with four other death row inmates conspired to seize control of a nuclear missile silo at Malmstrom AFB (where Dell was once intelligence officer) and threaten the launch of the missiles unless they get millions and safe passage and they want the President as a hostage. Combined with the fact that the flurry of activity at the base is making the Russians take notice, Dell's act of revenge threatens to cause a chain reaction elsewhere in the world!
It could have made a great movie. But then Robert Aldrich got his hands on it and decided that the motive behind this action needed some grandiose political statement and Aldrich, leftist that he was, decided this would be the occasion to hammer audiences with a bunch of BS about the evilness of American foreign policy in the Cold War era culminating in Vietnam. Dell is now an ex-General instead of a Major. He was "railroaded" by the Air Force on a murder one charge because he was sounding off after his Vietnam experience. Now he wants the President to release an NSC document that basically says America fought Vietnam just to show Russia how tough we were even though we knew we couldn't win. This is so Dell can be seen as a hero and that his motives are for the good of America. But it's all going to end badly. Dell convinces the President (a BADLY miscast Charles Durning) that he will release the document but that Dell and his cohorts have to be taken out so he presents himself as a hostage and the hope is the sharpshooters will take Dell (Burt Lancaster) and his surviving henchman (Paul Winfield) out. But alas, this is a story where the US military does nothing right and so the barrage also claims the life of the President whose dying plea to his Secretary of Defense (Melvyn Douglas) that the document in which America will prostrate its sins before the world be released, goes unacknowledged.
Quite a mouthful. And a case of how a simple, suspenseful narrative of doomsday tension got ruined by Aldrich's desire to have Burt Lancaster, Charles Durning etc. make one annoying speech after another that distracts from the emergency at hand. And along the way, in order to accommodate this political soapbox narrative, things about the storyline that worked fine in the novel when it was just Major Dell striking back over the injustice of his murder conviction, no longer make ANY sense.
#1-General Dell was "railroaded" by the Air Force into murder one charge so he could get 30 years to life because he got into a brawl with an MIA victim's brother who had a fatal heart attack. But how could the Air Force have anything to do with that, if Dell wasn't in a military prison? Of course he *couldn't* be in a military prison because then he wouldn't have been able to stage his scheme with his fellow inmates who are NOT military.
#2-How does Dell know about this document in the first place? He couldn't have known about it before he went to jail or else he would have blabbed about it then by gee....maybe contacting someone in the PRESS? This is too conveniently covered when the President asks him who he got it from and Dell snaps, "A patriot but that's irrelevant." No, it IS relevant. Who was stealing a Top Secret document and feeding it to a man in jail on a murder charge? Why didn't THAT guy leak it to the press or was that "patriot" anxious to aid and abet an act of domestic terrorism? A responsible leader (and Durning's President is anything but!) wouldn't let that go. But this is just Aldrich's attempt to move quickly past a gaping plot hole that was created only by his desire to go on a soap box.
#3-In order to paint Lancaster's Dell as a hero, Aldrich tries to make sure he doesn't do anything that could tarnish the halo. This is why when the unstable psycho of the team, Hoxey (William Smith) callously blows away several of the Air Force guards that were supposed to just be left unconscious, Dell blows him away. But alas, Aldrich overlooked something later that cut the ground out from under him when he conveniently decided to make everyone forget about the two members of the missile crew, one of whom (Richard Jaeckel) just HAPPENS to be an old friend of Dell's and who just HAPPENS to have gone through the same horrific experience in Vietnam that Dell did, but who chose instead to not fight the System. This character is created solely to give us the abysmal cliche of "friend of hero argues with him to tell him he's in over his head". Then Jaeckel is tortured by the two underlings Winfield and Burt Young so they can get his partner to crack under pressure and reveal the combination to the safe with the launch keys (idiotic to believe that ANYONE with that responsibility would so easily crack under pressure). When next we see Jaeckel and his partner they suddenly break out of their closed door captivity to try and wrest control of the silo back. The partner is gunned down (and Young killed) and Jaeckel (who already has a stab wound in his shoulder) is clubbed unconscious and put back in the other room trussed up again. And then......he just disappears from the rest of the film. At no time does Durning's President or anyone else demand that Dell explain what happened to the two men in the crew. Even when Durning arrives as a hostage he doesn't ask and consequently as the three of them go back up to their laughable sad ending that ensues, NO ONE knows that a wounded, unconscious Jaeckel is still at the bottom of the silo all trussed up! But I guess if we had to deal with Dell's brutal treatment of an old friend of his, there would go this halo of self-righteous nobility that the film tries to cloak him with.
#4-A simple question regarding the tragic ending where the President is also shot by the Air Force snipers. WHY DIDN'T THEY HAVE HIM WEAR A BULLET-PROOF VEST????? Would have been rather simple wouldn't it?? I guess they forgot about that just like they forgot all about Jaeckel!
Lancaster's Lawrence Dell is no hero. He's a deranged psychopath prepared to put the lives of billions of people at risk for what he calls the proper way America should behave in the name of "open government". A real President would have called him out on his hypocrisy and how there's no fundamental difference between himself and what he says he's against.
The only thing that makes the film watchable is when you see the elements of the original novel faithfully adapted such as when the silo is seized accompanied to Jerry Goldsmith's suspenseful music. It's a sad reminder of how there was potentially a great movie waiting to be made that we didn't get thanks to a director's mad obsession with wanting to make a grotesque political statement that when applied to the era it took place in was a vile slander on the American effort to contain the 20th century's greatest mass murdering ideology.
The Return of Marcus Welby, M.D. (1984)
So-So Reunion Film
A decade after it left the air, Robert Young returned to the role of Marcus Welby in this reunion film of sorts. Elena Verdugo was back (but without much to do) but James Brolin's commitment to "Hotel" kept him from appearing (though Dr. Kiley is referenced in a key scene at the climax). The real purpose of this reunion though was to act as a backdoor pilot for a proposed new series with Darren McGavin and Morgan Stevens as a father-son doctor team in which Welby would act as the occasional guide in a supporting role. The proposed pilot didn't sell and just as well since while McGavin still shows he can be a commanding presence in his own right, Morgan Stevens as his son comes off as very annoying. The telemovie is devoted to their estranged relationship and how the events bring them together, and along the way we get Welby having to fight from being put out to pasture (Jessica Walter is totally wasted in a brief and thankless role as the head of the heartless conglomerate that wants Welby and other old doctors fired to save costs). In the end it's only a so-so follow-up to the series. Not bad but not memorable either and just as well the proposed follow-up series didn't happen.
Welcome to Japan, Mr. Bond (1967)
A Valuable "Lost" Performance Of Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llewelyan
I couldn't disagree more with the previous reviewer. For one thing, he needs to remember that back then, a clip show like this was pretty much your only way to see the great moments of previous Bond films in that long ago age when you couldn't own your own copy of the film. So the special has to be seen for what it was in an era we can't comprehend today. But the real joy of this program is seeing the new wraparound material of Lois Maxwell as Miss Moneypenny and Desmond Llewelyan as Q as they set up the clips. As these two people appeared in more Bond films than anyone else and whose continuity from one era to the next always acted as a comfortable anchor for the series as Connery gave way to Moore (with Llewelyan enduring all the way to the Brosnan era), it's precious to see new material of them in these beloved roles. Lois gets more to do here than she did in the series collectively and Llewelyan gets a chance to rail about the damage done to his precious gadgets in the previous films, and they both manage to make it natural extensions of how they played the characters in the film. The one thing we could have done without was the silly bit about the unknown actress who wants to become Mrs. Bond. This was a leftover gimmick from when "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" was going to be the next film until it was decided to reverse the sequence.
Give this a look in the Blu-Ray supplements and skip through the clips if you must but enjoy the new material with two old and familiar friends who are dearly missed by all Bond fans.
Star Trek: Metamorphosis (1967)
Trek At Its Worst
This episode is one of many poor Season 2 shows that prove once and for all that Fred Freiberger was not the man who ruined Star Trek. I had gone more than 30 years without seeing this episode but its details were burned in my memory because I used to have the old Trek "Fotonovel" of this episode. Finally revisiting it, it is so bad and distasteful that I think those who are so quick to praise it should stop and think for a minute.
Let's start with how this episode gives us for the THIRD time, Gene Roddenberry's caveman philosophy about women in which they can't be seasoned professionals and also have a love life. Nope, first we had Marla McGivers (Space Seed), Carolyn Palamas (Who Mourns For Adonias) and now Nancy Hedord, professional women all who are lonely and unfulfilled. Funny how James T. Kirk can be a man who is devoted to his profession who will never settle down but we can accept that. Not with women though.
Well if that isn't bad enough, let's consider this episode's ultimate resolution. Nancy Hedford is dying of disease because this self-centered gas cloud "Companion" has forced the shuttle down to provide companionship for stranded Zefrem Cochran, and then later Hedford basically dies and the Companion takes over her body so the Companion can know what it means to love. For all this "We are here" junk, the fact remains that Nancy Hedford has been taken over by an alien for the alien's pleasure and only because she died thanks to being denied medical treatment that was needed. And oh BTW, isn't it interesting how James T. Kirk's revulsion for war in "A Taste Of Armageddon" goes out the window here? Because after all, the Commissioner, a professional the Federation thinks is the right woman for the job to stop a war taking place on another planet (how many people are dying in all that death, disease, destruction and horror that's taking place?) is gone now and Kirk just shrugs (in what reeks of an "oops, we forgot about that point!" moment put in the script the last minute), "Oh, I guess the Federation will find SOME woman who can stop that war." No big deal that people are dying somewhere else, so long as that Companion is happy. And just how is Kirk going to explain things to Scotty and company who he's been so chipper with on the communicator up to now? How is Kirk going to explain this to Starfleet? If he's not going to tell them about Cochran it's going to be his head for negligence! Please don't tell me I'm nitpicking and missing the "big picture". The fact is, if you want me to think about the "deep" issue of the story then don't screw up the details of the story that undermines your "deep" point. Make Hedford an ordinary bureaucrat in a dead-end desk-pushing job and you solve one problem at least. Failure to solve these problems is to put it bluntly, rotten writing.
For the People (1965)
A Pretentious Misfire
I'm afraid the previous reviewer leaves something of a wrong impression when he says "For The People" is a precursor of sorts to "Law And Order." Yes, that's true to the extent that "For The People" was a show that had central characters in the D.A.'s office, and yes, it was filmed on location in New York, but if you ever come across any of the episodes of "For The People" that circulate among collectors (you can forget about ever seeing it repeated on cable or released commercially on DVD) and expect to see an interesting procedural look at how the criminals get prosecuted.....I'm afraid you're going to be in for a giant letdown. The six episodes of this show I had a chance to see recently were mostly shows that didn't so much focus on letting us see how the central characters get their job done, but rather spent more time serving up some giant failures on the part of DA Dave Koster's pursuit of justice, and rather than focus on the procedural points that could allow a story to develop, each episode I saw was mostly a giant exercise in characters making soapbox speeches that were designed to cater to a politically liberal view of criminal law. In one episode, DA Koster incredibly tanks his own case regarding a Puerto Rican's brutal murder of an old woman, because he's become convinced that a racist cop coerced the confession and has decided that rather than do the business of the people to prosecute and let a judge and jury decide after making his best case (If defense attorneys are supposed to give the best possible defense for clients they know are guilty, isn't it also supposed to be the obligation of a prosecutor to do the same even if he has only *personal* doubts, *especially* since the episode also makes it clear that Koster believes the Puerto Rican is guilty despite the possibly coerced confession?), he should instead shirk his own duty to be "for the people" in the name of a dubious constitutional concept (dubious at least to many legal scholars who wouldn't subscribe to the points the noble characters make speeches about, but who find that in the literary realm of leftist writers, their views only get expressed by obvious racists and bigots to cast an air of illegitimacy over their basic arguments. This to gloss over the fact that Koster is prepared to turn loose a brutal killer that he KNOWS is a brutal killer who could kill again just to humiliate a cop who may or may not have crossed a line).
I found it sad in a way that I couldn't come away liking this show because the acting is solid (it may in fact be some of the best acting of Shatner's career), the theme music has a nice stately air, and the New York location photography carries on the tradition of "Naked City." But "Naked City" was a show that was entertaining by making its dramatic points through fascinating human interest stories, and not by having characters stop the action cold every five minutes to make another editorializing sermonette. This is the reason why it wasn't just being slotted opposite "Bonanza" that doomed "For The People", it was also the weight of its own lofty pretentiousness that caused it to sink, and forced Shatner to find another role that would give him TV immortality.
Inchon (1981)
A Strange Curiosity
I am one of the few people on this Earth who actually saw "Inchon" during its brief theatrical run in 1982, and did not see it again until a cable recording came my way very recently. It was fascinating to revisit this train wreck of a movie that took what should have been a fascinating event in history, and instead with a bloated budget of $40 million and the interference of the Moonies, turned it into something that ultimately isn't the worst thing ever produced for the screen, but at the same time is something that could have been made cheaply for TV at a fraction of the cost.
The thing "Inchon" most resembles is the godawful 1979 ABC miniseries "Pearl" which took the events of another famous event in history, and gave us a soapy, silly melodrama about a bunch of boring fictional characters. In "Inchon", the goings on of Ben Gazzara, Jacqueline Bisset (who looks stunning), Richard Roundtree and the wasted David Janssen could just as easily have been at home in some made for TV potboiler that utilized stock footage for the big moments. It's because "Inchon" had an A-level budget, and an inordinance of expensive set design and extras etc. that in the end made its flaws magnified in ways that a cheap TV miniseries like "Pearl" could keep obscured.
The acting...sheesh, Olivier does get the look of MacArthur right but Terence Young was clearly asleep when giving him instruction on how to deliver his lines, and the script he was given didn't help matters either. As for the rest, they're okay in a TV movie kind of way, but that's largely damning with faint praise. Jerry Goldsmith's score is great, as is the cinemtaography.
I will say one thing though to a couple reviewers though who think the greatest sin of this movie is its anti-communism. That is really about the ONLY thing you can give this movie a plus for, because the North Koreans of Kim Il Sung were a brutal thug regime and their invasion of the South was not a case of as one reviewer falsely implied one where atrocities were equally committed by both sides. The prologue to the movie that summarizes how Kim Il Sung flew to Moscow to receive permission from Stalin to go ahead with the invasion is dead accurate in its description of the real history and it sadly offers the initial hope that we're going to get a movie more in the mold of "The Longest Day" or "Tora! Tora! Tora!". Instead we got a movie that was as noted in the mold of "Pearl" and almost exclusively utilizing the bad fictional subplots that nearly wrecked "Midway." So yes, "Inchon" is bad, but not necessarily for the reasons that some people would like to have us think. It was ultimately more the fault of the scriptwriters, the actors and the director that "Inchon" turned out to be as bad as it was, than the heavy-hand of the Moonie cult (though their PR for the movie certainly dragged it down further).
Naked City (1958)
Identity Of Narrator
I've just been introduced to this series through the DVD releases and have found myself highly impressed by the location photography in New York and the atmosphere of the stories. The show serves the dual purpose of being entertaining, and also a fascinating visual time capsule of a lost period in New York history.
Although its unfortunate the DVDs are not released as Season sets, it's still impressive that the original bumpers and commercials have been left intact! A rare chance to see TV as it was experienced at the time.
On the matter of the narrator though, I'm afraid IMDb has it wrong. It is most assuredly NOT Paul Frees, at least not on the 1960-61 episodes I've seen on DVD. That voice is clearly Lawrence Dobkin, a noted radio actor of the 50s with a number of acting and directing credits all the way up to the 1980s.
Mayday (2005)
Fair To Weak Adaptation Of A Superior Novel
I have been a fan of the novel "Mayday" since it first came out in 1978 which was when pilot Thomas Block had sole author's credit. It was a very effective, chilling take on the familiar "airplane disaster" type story that had become popular in the wake of the Airport movies. I also enjoyed the 1997 update which gave us a more dramatically effective ending. Because of that intimate familiarity with both versions of the novel, I really had low expectations for a two hour TV production, because (1) I knew that would not give us enough time to do the story justice and (2) we would be spared depiction of what is the novel's really most chilling aspect, the fact that the surviving passengers are turned into brain-dead zombies for all intents and purposes, and are as much an obstacle to the plane's ability to get back as the conspiracies of Commander Sloan and the Airline executive/Insurance company respectively.
So, coming in with low expectations, I came away for the most part not too bothered by the changes that were made. I was in fact grateful that the Navy comes off better in this telling of the tale than they do in the novel with Lieutenant Matos ultimately defying Commander Sloan, and Admiral Hennings deciding to blow the whistle on Sloan's actions (in the novel, Sloan manages to trick Matos into crashing his plane so he can be killed as a witness, and the guilt-ridden Admiral Hennings commits suicide. Sloan ultimately gets arrested when its revealed his office was tapped). Also, I was glad they cut out the implausibly stupid romance of John Berry and flight attendant Sharon Crandall that developed along the way.
On the down side, the film was stuck with the dated source material by having a cockpit crew of three which was normal back in the 70s but is no longer so today. Also, the ending was soft-pedaled completely, leaving out the brain damage effects consequences to the passengers, and implying that many of them will ultimately recover, and leaving out the improved ending of the 97 novel where airline exec Johnson boards the plane to try and remove the incriminating printout documents and has his confrontation with Berry. The subplot added of other passengers trapped in the Conference Room proved pointless, and the matter of Harold Stein still being alive at the end, rather than committing suicide earlier was a weak point too.
All in all, if you're a fan of the novel, you'll consider this a tepid "by-the-numbers" adaptation that failed to take advantage of how more chillingly effective the story could have been on the big screen. If you're not familiar with the novel at all, I won't blame you for finding the whole thing wildly implausible and silly and would recommend getting the novel, whether the 78 original or the 97 rewrite.
Tarzan's Revenge (1938)
Not The Worst Tarzan Film
Despite its reputation as being among the worst of the Tarzan films, this largely forgotten attempt to challenge the established MGM series of Johnny Weismuller and Maureen O'Sullivan is really no worse than any of the later Tarzan movies of the 1940s and 1950s (not surprising since Sol Lesser, who later took over the series after MGM abandoned the series produced this) in terms of silly plot, laughable stereotypes etc. The real reason why the film gets it's bad reputation is because of Glen Morris, the 1936 Decathlon champion, who makes for a very unconvincing Tarzan with a goofy expression and his awkward way of saying his only two words in the whole script ("Tarzan!" and "Good!"). The later movies at least have more convincing Tarzans. Morris learned his lesson and never tried acting again (I shudder to think of what might have happened had Yankees legend Lou Gehrig embarrassed himself by being in this film, as he had been Lesser's first choice).
By contrast, Olympic swimming legend Eleanor Holm fares much better. Like Morris, she had no experience for the part other than her athletic fame but she seems to at least be having a good time like the first prize winner on amateur night, showing off some spunk as Tarzan's eventual mate (keeping her own name Eleanor, rather than being called Jane), and also looking quite lovely in a bathing suit. If anything, she comes off as better than any of the women who followed Maureen O'Sullivan in the part of Jane and it would have been interesting to see her in other Tarzan films.
Miracle on Ice (1981)
Surpasses "Miracle" In Some Areas. Still Worth A Look
"Miracle On Ice" is the lesser known first dramatization of the 1980 US Olympic Hockey team's miracle gold medal victory, made just a year after the event as a three hour TV-movie that aired on ABC. The deficiencies in being a rushed production, as well as the passage of time that has enhanced the importance of what was accomplished, undoubtedly was why it was felt the story deserved new attention in the big-screen "Miracle" in 2004. Despite that, "Miracle On Ice" is still worth a look, and in some areas manages to surpass the big screen remake.
One area where it does not, is it's choice of lead actor to play coach Herb Brooks. Karl Malden was 30 years too old for the part, and while he tries his best, he never overcomes this obstacle. TV-actors of the time like Bill Bixby or Robert Conrad would have been far better casting, as some have suggested. This stigma of Malden being the wrong man for the part, I suspect was another reason why it was felt the story deserved a new treatment.
But on the other hand, "Miracle On Ice" manages to tell a lot more about some of the players than "Miracle" did. We learn more about goalie Jim Craig, and his relationship with his father that culminated in the dramatic moment of him draped in an American flag at the end of the gold medal game, looking for his dad in the stands. "Miracle" gave us the story of Ralph Cox, the last man cut from the team, while "Miracle On Ice" tells this story from the perspective of Les Auge, who was in fact the second to last man cut from the team. We learn also in "Miracle On Ice" of Mike Eruzione's decision to never play pro after being captain of the gold medal team. Ken Morrow is accurately bearded.
Also, "Miracle On Ice's" limited production values required a generous reuse of ABC's actual broadcasts of the games blended in with some quick close-ups. And in the process, this ends up demonstrating how no matter how much Disney tried, "The Miracle" could just not duplicate the noise intensity and the frenzied atmosphere of what Lake Placid was like during that key game against the Russians. Also, "The Miracle" made a big mistake by having Al Michaels and Ken Dryden recreate their play-by-play calls and it sounds just like a recreation, which is to say, artificial and fake. The actual calls by them above the actual crowd noise used by "Miracle On Ice" are far superior.
In the end, "Miracle On Ice" may not have the production values of "Miracle", and the latter movie is a superior story of Herb Brooks the man and the coach, but as an all-around portrait of the team and the event itself, I still give the slight edge to "Miracle On Ice."
Challenger (1990)
Made Too Soon
I revisited this for the first time in 14 years after watching more recent docudramas of the space program like "Apollo 13" and "From The Earth To The Moon" to see how well it held up. I have no problem with the acting, or the manner in which the Challenger's crew is depicted. What I do think hurts this film though is the decision to not depict the explosion and the aftermath and just end it with the launch. I realize this was done because in 1990, the events were still too fresh in public memory to want to see the images of disaster again, but this decision ultimately hurts the film's ability to be a long-term definitive telling of the story. What was needed instead was a flashback framing device of the Rogers Commission investigation, with Roger Beaujolay and Lawrence Molloy being subjected to the painful admissions of what went wrong, and how they were impacted by the tragedy. And thumbs down for the cheesy ending of the Challenger astronauts reciting the poem one line at a time instead of providing something more moving like President Reagan's remarks to the nation that afternoon.
For all it's virtues, the story of the "Challenger" disaster ultimately deserves a better treatment than this version gave it because it was simply made too soon after the tragedy for there to be appropriate perspective.
Bye Bye Birdie (1963)
The Changes Were Necessary
I am usually in the corner of those who complain about how Hollywood generally altered many classic Broadway stage musicals into something radically different when they were made into movies. Most of the time, the changes were ridiculous and weakened the property dramatically.
"Bye Bye Birdie" though, is the rare exception where the changes made to get it to the big screen were absolutely necessary. And nothing demonstrates this more than the fact that the faithful 1995 TV version is a lumbering, slow-moving mess that manages to demonstrate perfectly how what plays great on the stage does not always translate effectively to the film medium.
By contrast, the 1963 film version decided to make itself a bright, colorful film extravaganza that played to the strengths of the film medium. And the results in my opinion, worked wonderfully.
To a stage fan like "citybuilder" who rips the changes from the play, he needs to stop and think of how the structure of the stage version, which has the Sullivan show moment and the punching of Conrad as an Act I finale, would never have worked on film. It simply makes more cinematic sense to move that to the end. And the whole big deal over Rose's ethnicity, which was really done to showcase the talent of Broadway lead Chita Rivera, would have been a distraction as well because spotlighting Albert's mother as a racist would have gone against the whole tone of the movie (and truth be told "Spanish Rose" is not that great a song). Likewise, it's better to have Albert sing "Put On A Happy Face" to Rose rather than a nameless Conrad Birdie fan we never see again.
Dick Van Dyke and Paul Lynde offer the right amount of gravitas from the Broadway cast, Janet Leigh in her black wig gets to show off her dancing talent which she seldom got a chance to do (her singing is admittedly a bit thin, but she gets by), and of course Ann-Margret totally elevates the role of Kim McAfee into a star vehicle, and who can blame them for doing this? Her rendition of the title song written for the film is enough to leave one gasping for air, yet she still manages to be convincing as the wide-eyed teenager just the same.
Ultimately, stage fans can be satisfied that they got the version they prefer done on film (though it should be noted that the 95 version is not a pure rendition of the 1960 stage script, but rather the 1991 touring revival), but movie fans got the better end of things with this version in 1963. It will never be among the great movie musicals, but it is two solid hours of colorful early 60s fun.
DC 9/11: Time of Crisis (2003)
Finally, A Movie About 9/11 That Tells The Truth!
Thank God for Lionel Chetwynd, because it means there is at least one filmmaker in Hollywood with enough sanity to deviate from the radical garbage of Michael Moore and his documented lies to just tell the truth about what happened on 9/11, which shows the courageous and effective response of our national leaders to the greatest tragedy in American history.
Liberals who want to carp about a film that dares to show a positive depiction of President Bush have been pampered for years with fawning (and often not always accurate) portrayals of Democrat presidents in action (see the well-done "Missiles Of October" and the awful "Thirteen Days" for instance) that it speaks volumes to their general sense of intolerance to throw fits over a film that dares to show a positive depiction of a Republican president in action.
But unlike liberal movies with their indulgence for hate-filled conspiracy rhetoric about conservatives and Republicans, there are no cheap shots thrown at Democrat politicians in this film. Sure, we hear talk about "changes in policy" but there are no direct digs at Bill Clinton which Chetwynd easily could have done. The intent, like "The Missiles Of October", is to recreate how our leaders acted in a time of crisis, and in that respect he succeeds brilliantly just like "The Missiles Of October" did for the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The performances are outstanding. Timothy Bottoms nails W. down perfectly as do the rest of the cast (although I didn't think Lawrence Pressman quite got Dick Cheney). It's enough to make you at times think you're listening in on the real events as they unfolded.
Bravo Lionel Chetwynd for providing people who understand the facts about 9/11 and President Bush for giving us a welcome antidote to the mountains of filth from the likes of Michael Moore and other self-hating Americans.
Shadowlands (1993)
Watered Down Version Of The True Story
"Shadowlands" had already been effectively done once before as a British TV-movie with Joss Ackland and Claire Bloom. It's poignance lay in it's ability to movingly tell the story of C.S. Lewis and Joy Gresham *without* tampering with the facts. And in particular, the importance of Christianity in the lives of both Lewis and Joy was not watered down one iota. When Lewis goes through his crisis after her death, we hear quotations from his moving "A Grief Observed" that helped him regain focus on his faith, and the film ended with a powerful image of Lewis planning to tell his stepson Douglas about the meaning of faith.
Alas, this important element is completely missing from this ultimately pointless theatrical version of the story. To be sure there are fine performances by Hopkins and Winger, but in addition to the altered factual details (unlike the original telefilm, Joy's elder son David Gresham is zapped from existence this time out), this movie in typical arrogant Hollywood style decides to remove the importance of Christianity from both the lives of C.S. Lewis and Joy. The end result is something that is blatantly dishonest in the worst form, and one can only note that if Lewis and Joy were practitioners of any faith other than traditional orthodox Christianity, we would no doubt have not seen Hollywood (which will always have nothing but contempt for those of traditional faith) try to downplay this into meaninglessness.
Leave it to Hollywood to find a way of turning a story about the 20th century's greatest apologist for traditional Christianity into what is ultimately another of their typical backhanded anti-Christian swipes.
UPDATE: Four years later, I am amused to see the reasons for my negative view validated in so many of the positive reviews of this film, which again operate from the conceit that the importance of Christian faith in the lives of both C.S. Lewis and Joy is something that can be easily ignored. That is the ultimate testament to the historical dishonesty behind this movie because without the mutual element of faith, there is no story of these two. This was the point that the original BBC telemovie did NOT forget, and it accomplished it without giving us a non-stop sermon (which is what the apologists for this movie seem to think a critic like me would have wanted to see) but by judiciously inserting the moments of Lewis and Joy talking about faith, and giving us that poignant ending that lets us know that Lewis is serious about teaching Douglas the meaning of how to find the true faith in God that he has now recovered in the wake of Joy's death. That is the definitive telling of the story in a way that this one could only hope to be.
Battlestar Galactica (2003)
Worthless Trash Unworthy Of The Name "Battlestar Galactica"
For 25 years, fans of "Battlestar Galactica" like me have struggled mightily to make people realize why that maligned 1978-79 series strikes a chord with so many of us. And it seems like time and again, the critics just don't get it. They don't understand that for those of us who have seen TV and movie Science Fiction repeatedly serve us cliches of relativism and secularism down through the decades, a show like Galactica that deigned to be different by presenting us with a universe where there were moral absolutes of Good and Evil, where people of religious faith were people of integrity and not crazed lunatics, and where there was a war not muddled by moral equivalence doctrines (just to name a few things) was refreshingly different.
We have fought for years to see the show revived with the original cast of characters we cared so much about. Richard Hatch's Apollo, Dirk Benedict's Starbuck, Herb Jefferson's Boomer, Anne Lockhart's Sheba. And yet somehow, it seems like fate has always manage to keep that from happening.
Ron Moore's "reimagining" ends up being the supreme insult to 25 years of trying to get respect for the original and to see the saga continued. By his own admission, he watched nothing but the cut down pilot episode before deciding what was good and bad about Galactica and judged it entirely through the lens of its detractors. And so once he got his hands on the property, that meant good bye to every last thing that made Galactica special and unique.
The positive portrayal of religion and people of faith? Not here. This time it's the enemy who are the religious nuts. In the original, Commander Adama led the people to Earth based on his genuine religious faith. Here, Adama (badly played by Edward James Olmos who mumbles his lines the whole time) makes up the legend of Earth and lies just because he wants to boost everyone's morale. That is just utterly outrageous.
In the original, there was a rich subtext to the origin of the Cylons. In the episode "War Of The Gods" we discovered that the robot Cylons created by the extinct reptilian Cylons were the product of the devil himself (Patrick MacNee's Count Iblis) and this explained best of all why the Human-Cylon war had to be seen as a war through no shades of grey. Here, Ron Moore resorts to the oldest cliche in the book of "Man's creation turning on him" in order to give us his idea of a relativist universe in which absolute standards of good and evil do not exist. That kind of mushy relativism might work in Star Trek, but it does not represent what Galactica stands for.
Oh, and don't get me started on the gratuitous sex, the dysfunctional family relationships in place of the warmth and strength of the Apollo-Adama relationship in the original, and everything else that seems to have been deliberately done to give the fans of Galactica the middle finger. Add to that a cast that can't act its way out of a paper bag and an awful music score that consists of loud banging and ripoffs of Lennie Niehaus's score from the 1996 "Titanic" miniseries, and the end result is, as we Galactica fans would say, one hundred percent felgercarb.
Long live the real Battlestar Galactica. This isn't it, and never will be for those who know better. Hopefully we will one day see the real cast return for one last time to complete the saga that's been begging to be resumed since the magnificent "Hand Of God" episode.
The Man (1972)
Very Well Made TV-Movie
First off, the last reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about when he says the Constitutional fluke that makes James Earl Jones president is "fictional." It is indeed true that when the President, Vice-President and Speaker Of The House are all dead and/or incapacitated the President Pro Tempore of the Senate becomes President. The only stretch is that the job usually goes to the most senior member of the majority Party of the Senate, and not to someone as young as Jones' senator is.
Also, there is no assassination plot against the President in the movie.
As for the movie itself, despite the fact that it is penned by Rod Serling (from Irving Wallace's novel), it is remarkably less free of the kind of pretentious liberalism that marred his script for "Seven Days In May." In fact, what is remarkable for the film is how it falls much closer to the center of the spectrum politically in comparison to what Hollywood churns out today like "West Wing".
Jerry Goldsmith's score is the best work he ever did for a TV-movie and hopefully some day it will find its way to CD as many other obscure TV scores of his have.
Flight 90: Disaster on the Potomac (1984)
Well-Made Docudrama
This TV-movie about the January 13, 1982 crash of Air Florida Flight #90 into the Potomac river is for the most part a well-made docudrama surrounding many of the people involved in the story. Legal hurdles prevented some stories from being depicted, in particular that of Lenny Skutnik who dove into the river to rescue Priscilla Tirado from drowning. Skutnik felt that any movie about the event was exploitative and thus refused to let his story be dramatized. His scene is confined to a look-alike actor (billed only as "Man On Shore" in the original credits) jumping in at the appropriate moment. However, compensation is offered by focusing on the more neglected story of mental hospital worker Roger Olian (Richard Masur) who first swam out to give the trapped passengers enocouragement before the helicopters arrived. His story is as remarkable as Skutnik's ultimately and the TV movie allowed those of us who weren't familiar with his efforts to see how there was more than one hero that day who jumped into the Potomac to provide help.
The docudrama approach with no special effects of the plane crash managed to work well because there is a desire to keep things as authentic as possible, which includes a large use of actual news footage of the rescue operations, which is blended in seamlessly with the scenes of actors in the tank. Gil Melle's score is a bit awkward and the most dated aspect of the production, but still has some hauntingly beautiful sections when he gets away from the synths.
A few postscripts to the story of the survivors. Nikki Felch's marriage to David Frank did not last and she sadly died of pancreatic cancer in 2002, just two weeks after Burt Hamilton also passed away. Joe Stiley was forced into early retirement by his injuries and lives in Washington state. Priscilla Tirado has not granted an interview in more than ten years and remains traumatized by the events that saw her lose her husband and baby. By far, the happiest story has been that of Flight Attendant Kelly Duncan (who is given the least attention of any of the survivors in the movie, with greater focus coming on the other two flight attendants who were killed) who today teaches at a Christian pre-school and has three children.
Jesus (1999)
Worthless Rubbish-Avoid This One!
It astonishes me to see the high amount of praise this miniseries gets, especially from those who describe themselves as Christians. Evidently they never watched a single good Biblical movie in their lives, because after spending an entire week revisiting such movies as "King Of Kings", "The Greatest Story Ever Told", "Jesus Of Nazareth" and "The Passion", and then seeing this for the first time I can now say unequivocably that until I end up being forced at gunpoint to see "Last Temptation Of Christ", here is the worst movie ever made about the life of Christ, period. Movies like "King Of Kings" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told" had their flaws, but they were at least well-acted and competently written and managed to evoke the times whereas this piece of rubbish simply gives us awful acting, an awful script, and one that is also Biblically inaccurate and historically inaccurate in general as well.
Jeremy Sisto as a Jesus who needs prodding from Mary to get started with His ministry (false; the whole point of the story of Jesus at 12 in the temple is to show how Jesus was always aware of who He was from the outset) is awful, but he's not alone. We get a historically laughable Pontius Pilate in Gary Oldman who still thinks he's playing Dr. Smith in the "Lost In Space" movie. Debra Messing as Mary Magdalene is totally unconvincing and is there only to goose up the ratings by giving us a star of a hit TV series in two near nude scenes. The locations are unconvincing stand-ins, and even more laughable are the temptation sequences which give us visions of the Crusades so the filmmakers can find a way of taking shots at Christianity in a movie about the birth of the faith.
"Jesus Of Nazareth", "The Passion", and "The Greatest Story Ever Told" are the mark of good to outstanding movies about Jesus' life. "Jesus" is the kind of movie that along with the dreadful "Noah's Ark" miniseries made me feel that Hollywood was incapable of making a decent Biblical movie again, until thankfully Mel Gibson came to the rescue.
Vanished (1971)
Doesn't Hold Up Well
"Vanished" has an impressive cast in the first ever two part TV movie, some good location photography in Washington that was rare for TV in those days and a great main theme by Leonard Rosenmann. But what starts out as an interesting premise of a presidential advisor disappearing and leading to all kinds of baffling questions as the flummoxed press secretary (James Farentino) tries to get to the bottom of things, ultimately closes with a laughably lame finish.
SPOILER ALERT! DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE END!
We end up discovering that the President (Widmark) has orchestrated the whole business to concoct his utopian scheme for nuclear disarmament (in other words we get four hours to be served up an unimaginative premise given to us in the opening minutes of "Seven Days In May" which was written by the same author) which in effect involves an arrogant community of atomic scientists blackmailing the entire world into disarming or else, irrespective of how in the setting of Cold War America this would have been an irresponsible policy action (someday, someone is going to have the guts to point out that the existence of atomic arsenals during the Cold War is what prevented a bloody conventional war in Western Europe from happening a third time in the 20th century and that what was needed to end the Cold War was not the elimination of atomic weapons, but the elimination of communism, which is exactly what happened). The CIA director is supposed to be the villain of the piece because he feeds information to the president's chief political rival, but frankly the way things unfold he ends up coming across as more sympathetic given how the President freezes him out of the process out of pure spite. His crime was having a covert group set things up among atomic scientists to get information which in the early 70s we were supposed to regard as a heinous offense, but in the post-9/11 world this comes off as being a big deal over nothing.
"Vanished" represents that intrusion into Cold War era films and telefilms of the weak-kneed philosophy toward waging the Cold War that thankfully our real life leaders never implemented. The unfortunate thing is that most people still refuse to learn this lesson when looking back on films made during the Cold War like this one.