rogueforte Reviews

Ride Out for Revenge (1957)

Lose The Kid

[5/10 · 25 June 2023]

This is a mostly pretty standard, Saturday morning kid's western. John Wayne could have easily been cast in the Rory Calhoun role (Tate) with no appreciable difference. Fans of Gloria Grahame and Vince Edwards will like it, even though there's nothing particularly memorable about their acting or scenes.

The biggest detriment is the large amount of screen time given to 'Little Billy'. You could see it coming right at the beginning of the movie, although his fate isn't particularly typical in these kinds of movies.

A real shame because, otherwise, it's not such a bad movie. As other's have mentioned, Lloyd Bridges' over-the-top, bad guy performance is the most redeeming quality. The other is the more sympathetic attitude given to the Native Americans' plight.

Tomorrow Is Another Day (1951)

Okay Film Noir Until She Dyes Her Hair

[6/10 · 10 May 2019]

In 'The Killers', the first 13 minutes or so that was written by Ernest Hemingway were terrific. But then it falls into a typical, contrived film noir. So it goes with 'Tomorrow is Another Day'. It's a decent enough film-noir when Ruth Roman is a hard, street-wise NYC blonde. But when she takes it on the lam with lonely ex-con Steve Cochran and they stop at a motel where she dyes her hair brunette, her personality suddenly (and unbelievably) softens 180 degrees and the whole movie switches gears (jumps the shark) and becomes some kind of wannabe 'Grapes of Wrath'. It really sucks too because, when Roman is a blonde, it's got a nice, gritty noir feel. But the smarmy later stuff just flat out ruins the movie. Another quite noticable change is Roman seems to lose her NYC accent after becoming a brunette, as well.

My recommendation? Watch it until Ruth Roman's hair color and speech changes, then forget it.

Deadfall (1968)

Deadfall? Dreadful. But a Natalie Wood lookalike!

[4/10 · 5 November 2018]

This is someone's attempt at an artsy heist movie with James Bond touches.. It doesn't work, at all. Another aspect of the heist which is totally unbelievable is Michael Caine being able to dig out the wall safe in only ten freaking minutes with just a hammer and chisel. That was just totally absurd.

The most interesting parts (which isn't saying much) were the guitar cutaways during the not-very-believable robbery (it's kind of a bargain-basement version of the famous climax in The Godfather), and Giovanna Ralli, who looks remarkably like Natalie Wood, particularly when she's waiting in the Citroen during the heist. She's not much of an actress but she looks good.

For someone who's into quirky sixties period-pieces, I guess it's worth a look (especially if you're a Michael Caine fan). But for the rest of us, well, it's just not very good. Maybe another one of those movies that's good for insomniacs looking to get some sleep. It's mostly like someone decided to take a bad tv soap opera and throw it up on the big screen with then-current A-list production values and artsy camera angles. In the end, it's still just a bad soap opera.

Enter Laughing (1967)

The Right Way to do Physical Comedy

[9/10 · 12 March 2018]

Okay, this is a lightweight, period comedy, but Reiner's direction is with a sincere heart, and it shows. While it drags with the scenes where Santoni and Margolin are left alone, the comedy comes through when Ferrer, May, and even Richard Deacon are on the screen. Gilford, Rickles, and even Nancy Kovak put in good supporting efforts, too. In fact, the movie has one of the funniest climactic scenes, ever, similar to the great end of 'A Shot in the Dark'. While you have to sit through some slow, typically contrived stuff, the ending when Santoni is trying to get on stage will, as others have stated, bring tears to your eyes from laughing so hard and makes whatever other failings this film might have worth the wait. In fact, I'd compare it with the great Marx brothers movies where there are a few, classic scenes, but you have to sit through the rest of the movie to get to them.

Star Trek: The Doomsday Machine (1967) Season 2, Episode 6

Ahh! It's the Giant Killer Space Windsock!

[10/10 · 10 March 2018]

As others have said, this is one of TOS' five best episodes. While, at first, it seems like mindless entertainment like 'Tribbles' or 'Mirror, Mirror', there is actually some depth to this when the theories about where the killer windsock came from (the model is actually a windsock that was dipped in some kind of concrete) are considered. The story goes that it's actually connected to TNG's Borg. Apparently, the nearly invincible Borg were wiping-out an alien race centuries ago known as The Perservers and they created the 'Doomsday' device to obliterate everything (including, presumably, the Borg) it came upon after their race was 'assimilated' by the Borg. It's a good explanation of the windsock's origin and purpose and a foreshadowing of the Borg when they appear later in TNG. It's a very nice continutiy between the two series.

William Windom's overracting actually fits well and is offset by Shatner's somewhat muted performance, which Windom claims was due to Shatner and Nimoy not getting along at the time.

Really, the only negative is that they couldn't get the great Robert Ryan to play Matt Decker. Now 'that' would have been awesome. It also would have been nice if Uhura had been around, but I didn't much miss Chekhov.

Still, this is an episode that's not as silly as, say, Tribbles, but not as heavy as some of the other 'socially relevant' crap that they tried to pull. There really aren't any silly or stupid moments throughout the entire episode, which can't be said for some of the other 'best' episodes. Particularly noteworthy is that Kirk wasn't boinking any alien females and simply doing his captain thing.

And then there are the special effects. Supposedly, this was the most effects-intensive episode of the entire series, and it shows. Particularly noteworthy is a great brief shot of the shuttlecraft leaving the Enterprise. It's movie-caliber of the time. Throughout the entire original series, any shots of the shuttlecraft either entering or leaving the shuttle bay were the best effects.

It's actually sort of like another really good episode, The Changeling, except Kirk can't talk or reason with the windsock like he can with the other machine bent on destroying (or 'sterilizing') everything in its path.

Star Trek: The Changeling (1967) Season 2, Episode 3

Shatner Saves It (mostly)

[8/10 · 4 December 2017]

Yeah, lots of plot holes and cheesy special effects but this is one of my favorites, and it's entirely due to Shatner's restrained (for once) performance. He actually seems to be acting and responding to the crew (mainly Spock) like a normal human being without any of his typical over- the-top hamming it up. Well, with the exception of the ending where, sadly, the writers reverted back to the cutesy crap. I can't really blame Shatner for that, either. When given decent dialog in the rest of show, The Shat did alright in this one, making it one of the most watchable episodes.

And a shout-out to user verbusen for noticing Lt. Leslie in his review. After rewatching these episodes many times, you start picking up the small things in the background, and Lt. Leslie at the helm next to Sulu, as well as wearing a gold tunic (as opposed to his typical red) is unusual. What isn't unusual, of course, is that Leslie has no lines. It's worth noting that the actor who played Leslie, Eddie Paskey, made a point of actually reading the scripts beforehand so he knew when an anonymous red-shirt was going to get offed, and made a point of making himself scarce during those red-shirt casting calls.

Good Morning World (1967–1968)

The Dick Van Dyke Show in color

[5/10 · 13 May 2017]

For anyone wondering what The Dick Van Dyke Show would have been like in color, here you go. Another reviewer said it was similar to Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm, and that's a good analogy. The biggest difference is Seinfeld was tailored for network broadcast, while CYE found its niche on cable. Unfortunately for Good Morning World, there was no cable in 1968. Coupled with a second-tier group of actors and that TDVDS had expended the audience for the show's premise, Good Morning World was destined to fail.

Honestly, what's really surprising (and actually rather laudable) was how the writers for GMW managed to come up with new ideas for scripts (lame as they might have been) rather than taking the easy way out and just recycling old TDVDS ideas.

But, really, when watching GMW, you have to imagine the DVDS actors, plus the sets being in B&W, and you quickly realize that there's not a lot of difference between the two. The sad fact was that TDVDS' time had simply passed and no one was interested in a color version with different actors.

Be Cool (2005)

Good God, what a horrible movie.

[1/10 · 28 May 2006]

Along with 'The January Man' and 'Death to Smoochy', 'Be Cool' has to be one of the biggest wastes of talent I've ever seen. Ironically enough, two of the three movies had either Harvey Keitel (an otherwise great actor) or were produced by Danny DeVito.

To begin with, Vince Vaughn is quickly becoming my current most disliked actor. His poor attempt at being funny by dressing like a pimp and imitating gangsta language would fit right in with a movie from another guy who just isn't funny in the least, Ben Stiller (think Stiller and Vaughn in 'Dodgeball' or 'Starsky and Hutch').

To their credit, Travolta and Keitel do the best they can with what they were given to work with. The problem with Travolta is he kept repeating the same lines from 'Get Shorty', the best examples being "Look at me" and "I'll say just what is necessary, if that". They were good *once* in 'Get Shorty'. Here, they quickly become as tiresome as some teenage nerd constantly reciting the lines from 'Caddyshack'.

Uma Thurman and Cedric the Entertainer's performances (there's even a 'moral' rant about racism) are on the level of a high-school play, Steven Tyler proves he should stick to playing music, and James Woods lucked-out by getting killed off early in this turkey.

Then there's the overlong, bad music performances, along with an obvious, bad rip-off of the great Travolta-Thurman dance sequence from 'Pulp Fiction'. My fast-forward button definitely got a work out on this one.

To top it off, the endless stream of obvious product placements makes one wonder if ever there was a movie with A-list production values whose sole purpose was to extract money from the movie-going public without offering any kind of decent entertainment, this is it. It's not funny and it's not entertaining. In fact, it's a lot like watching an infomercial with lots of celebrities. Quite obviously, the primary motivation for everyone in this movie was simply to pick up a paycheck.

The Fog of War (2003)

'The Banality of Evil, Part 2'

[5/10 · 21 April 2006]

I once read Adolf Eichmann's capacity to engineer The Holocaust described as 'The Banality of Evil' and that pretty much sums up other soulless, high-level bureaucrats like McNamara and Rumsfeld, as well. They effortlessly block out the horrendous nature of what they've been tasked to do by the rationalization of how brilliant and efficient they were, even if that brilliance and efficiency causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

The mere fact that McNamara, to this day, loves to continue talking and dwelling on his life's 'accomplishments' as a source of pride is a textbook study on the psychology of how anyone, no matter how supposedly brilliant, can rationalize what are otherwise despicable acts.

And just like a high-ranking Nazi war criminal, McNamara is quite clever and does a good job of trying to convince the viewer that he's somewhat repentant of what he's done, but it's readily apparent that his real agenda in making this documentary is to make sure everyone knows what a clever bastard he was throughout his life in whatever he was instructed to do. It's this 'brilliance' that is his ultimate absolution for the consequences of his actions.

This is the real reason he stuck it out with Johnson, even though he claims to have disagreed with his policies. Had McNamara even an ounce of conscious, he would have quit immediately when Johnson began the Vietnam escalation but he just couldn't bring himself to believe that anyone else could do as good a job of prosecuting the war. Likely as not, Rumsfeld will make the same claim years from now.

It's astonishing how similar McNamara is to Donald Rumsfeld in virtually every aspect. I guess we'll have to wait another thirty odd years or so to watch 'The Banality of Evil, Part 3', when Donald Rumsfeld makes his attempt at getting people to believe he's repentant for what will surely be judged as equally (if not more) catastrophic-as-Vietnam 'Iraq experience'.

Panic in the Streets (1950)

Palance saves this one

[7/10 · 4 March 2006]

It's ironic that Richard Widmark should be in the same movie in which Jack Palance makes his screen debut because, as Widmark stole Kiss of Death from Victor Mature as the giggling villain in Kiss of Death, Palance steals the show from Widmark in this one. Where Widmark's evil giggle made him menacing, it's Palance's cool, simple, straightforward demeanor, combined with his sharp, angular features that makes him stand out here. Particularly riveting is the climax of the final chase scene with Palance hanging grimacingly from the boat line.

The rest of the movie is otherwise generally mediocre (Widmark really overacts in a couple of scenes). It isn't really bad, it's just that Palance is what makes it memorable. Watch it for his performance alone.

A Night in Casablanca (1946)

One of Their Best

[9/10 · 24 February 2006]

Many disparage this movie as being one of the 'lesser' efforts by the Marx Bros, down there with 'Love Happy' and 'Room Service'. I, however, consider it one of their best movies, better than any of the earlier Paramount/Zeppo movies (like 'Duck Soup') and, along with 'A Day at the Races' and 'A Night at the Opera', represents not only the best of the later MGM/Irving Thalberg years, is the best of 'all' of the Marx' movies, Paramount or MGM.

Some have pointed out that many of the Marx scenes in this movie don't have the frantic, mad style of their other 'best' movies (the Paramount years). While this may be true, this movie has the best overall pacing of any of their movies (with some of the best individual lines, as well). In effect, it's the most even and consistent, throughout. In fact, where some like only the action-filled ending, to me, it's actually a distraction.

This is the Marx Bros. Movie that really showcases their great writing, dialogue and timing throughout the entire film while mostly avoiding the physical, Chaplin-esquire comedy of any of their other films, good or bad. While their other best movies have classic individual scenes, this is the only one that can be watched entirely without reaching for the fast-forward button to skip through any boring (usually romantic) musical sequences with other actors. It should be noted that the romantic duo in this film don't have a musical number and the only musical sequence not involving any Marx brother are the brief (but satisfying) renditions of 'Who's Sorry Now?' by Lisette Verea (both in French and English).

One other thing worth mentioning about all of the best Marx Bros. Movies is that they all have Sig Ruman in them! Some have said that it's the Margaret Dumont movies that are the best but I think it's really the ones with Sig Ruman. If Sig Ruman is listed in the credits, you are assured of seeing one of the best Marx Brothers movies.

Another small tidbit is that Ruth Roman is in it as 'Harem Girl' but uncredited. I finally found her in the casino scene but she can only be glimpsed for a second or two standing to the left and behind a seated Sig Ruman.

The biggest problem with 'A Night in Casablanca' is that it was made after what really are the worst Marx Bros movies, i.e., 'At the Circus', 'Go West', and 'Room Service' and this one, unfortunately, gets lumped in with those bombs.

The January Man (1989)

First movie I ever walked out on

[1/10 · 31 May 2005]

This has got to be one of the worst movies ever made, due solely to indifferent directing and a really, really bad script. As stated in other reviews, it's filled with standard Hollywood movie clichés. It's like what Ed Wood would have made if he'd been given a major movie studio budget and gotten 'A'-list actors. Therein lies the charm of Wood's movies and why 'they're so bad, they're good'. Movies like Wood's have such low production values and such miserable acting, they become unintentionally hilarious. In 'The January Man', there's no such charm. The acting isn't bad, it's just mediocre, which ends up making for a stunningly boring movie.

I remember when this movie came out and watching Kevin Kline plugging it on Letterman. Letterman asked him if the movie was any good and Kline said, "No". This got a laugh from the audience but, as it turns out, Kline was telling the truth.

Sideways (2004)

A movie in search of a sitcom

[5/10 · 21 May 2005]

I like wine, but I'm not obsessed with it. This movie will appeal to wine connoisseurs. It will especially appeal to connoisseurs of California wine. Personally, I don't much like pretentious California wine snobs and this movie turned me off almost immediately the first time Miles begins explaining to his friend Jack the proper method for tasting wine.

This in itself wouldn't be so bad except rather than being interesting, I found the main characters boorish, self-absorbed and dull, about what I'd expect from a 30 minute television sitcom. In fact, this movie is very similar to any movie that was based upon a popular television series except, in this case, the television series never existed. I can easily see this movie transferring to a television sitcom. Look for it in an upcoming network lineup starring no less than Thomas Haden Church and Paul Giamatti.

On the plus side, it did start to pick up (a little) two-thirds of the way through (Virginia Madsen is good although the female leads weren't very believable) and the ending was better than average (but predictable). Still, I find little to recommend this movie, especially considering all the 'rave' reviews it got. At last count, it was #194 of the top 250 on the IMDb. Give me a break...

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

Perfect? No, but as close as any movie's gotten so far...

[10/10 · 3 May 2005]

In a word, riveting. The ultimate emotional roller-coaster movie experience.

There are a few movies that, should they come on television just as you're preparing to go to bed, you'll forego a good night's sleep to watch. This is one of them. It's the pinnacle of a 'car wreck' movie, gluing you to the screen in the same way people stare at bad car wrecks.

Some have questioned why Honey and Nick didn't simply leave as they continued to be abused by their 'hosts' and the answer is quite simply the same as the audience: they can't turn away. Until the very end, they are the most sympathetic characters because much of the audience identifies with them as if they were in the same situation. That's the real purpose of Honey and Nick in this movie and the other thing that keeps people watching through what amounts to mutual psychological abuse. Just like a great, live sporting or a horrific news event, you have to stick around just to see what's going to happen next. This is also the source of the title. Virginia Woolf was known for her 'stream of consciousness' style of writing and is brought home by Taylor in one of the most poignantly touching final lines ever uttered in a movie.

The most powerfully dramatic moments are when Burton smashes a liquor bottle on a fireplace mantle (to which Taylor torments, "I hope that was an empty bottle, George. You can't afford to waste good liquor on an associate professor's salary"), his great monologue with Nick about his childhood, the exchange between Burton and Taylor when she says with such restrained fury, "What did you just say to me?", to which Burton responds with a deliberate, "I...ate...it..." and she spits in his face, and, of course, the soft, yet powerful, ending which explains everything.

The only flaws (and they are minor) are essentially the same as with most great plays that are transferred to film, i.e., when the movie's setting leaves the 'stage'. Here, it's when the cast moves from the living room to the bar/dance floor and then also drags a bit when Taylor returns to the house. Even here, there is some brilliant cinematography in the bar parking lot. Check out the lighting behind Taylor as she berates Burton. This alone makes the setting change worth it. It was also a little unbelievable that Martha and Nick would then be later having sex upstairs while Honey and George waited for them downstairs. But I suppose it was necessary as a plot contrivance to force George into his final 'game'.

But that's it. Everything else is so superbly done that these things are mere quibbles and crop up only after many viewings. Compared with other greats such as Citizen Kane, Casablanca and The Godfather, this one has the absolute lowest 'error' factor (and we're talking about some real subtle nuance flaws here) and the highest rating as far as emotional audience effect.

It is simply a 'must-see' for anyone serious about movies concerning in-depth, intricate character interaction on a level which involves the viewer in an intimate way.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

If Jarmusch made 16 Candles/Revenge of the Nerds

[7/10 · 24 April 2005]

I'm guessing that those who didn't like this movie don't much like (if they've even ever seen) a Jim Jarmusch directed movie, either. In that respect, you either get these kinds of movies, or you don't, just like there are people who don't like Pulp Fiction or Citizen Kane.

That said, if you like Jarmusch's off-beat, stream-of-consciousness style of directing, or the movies Sixteen Candles or Revenge of the Nerds, chances are, you won't be disappointed by Napoleon Dynamite. In fact, this movie is actually a substantial improvement because although it doesn't completely avoid them, it manages to soften and make more realistic the typical clichés for high-school characters, primarily the obnoxious 'jock' and his pretty, popular girlfriend. Yes, they disdain and harass Napoleon and, true to form, get their comeuppance. But, refreshingly, it's not done in the normal, formulamatic cartoonish manner

My favorite aspect of the movie is the lack of swearing. There's not so much as a 'damn' in this movie, but it isn't a distraction because, unlike most 'G' rated movies, the acting and dialog is quite good. In fact, it's not unlike watching the television version of Repo Man, which some claim is funnier because director Alex Cox intentionally inserted the goofiest possible alternatives ('melon farmer') for the extensive foul language in that movie.

One of the better movies about life as a high-school nerd.