My Movies, My Words (from Abbott to Z)

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE

2012-01-30T12:42:00.016-05:00

(October 1963, U.S.)

If DR. NO (1962) was the opportunity for the brand new James Bond film franchise to get its feet wet, then the second one, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, was the film that solidified many of the Bond elements and standards we've come to love and expect, including the pre-title opening white circle accompanied with the traditional opening theme, percussive themed "007" action music by John Barry, "Q" branch equipment as well as the characters of "Q" himself and Ernst Stavro Blofeld (identified only as "Number #1 here). This film is also one of the few (aside from QUANTUM OF SOLACE) that serves mildly as a direct sequel from its preceeding film. Listen carefully for the mention of Dr. No's name, Bond's previous trip to Jamacia and a very brief return of Sylvia Trench's character.

Although a lot more low key than many "high octane" Bond films, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is based on the 1957 novel of the same name by Ian Fleming. In this story, Bond is sent to assist in the defection of Soviet consulate clerk Tatiana Romanova (played by Daniela Bianchi) in Turkey, where SPECTRE plans to avenge Bond's killing of Dr. No. Along the way, he must do battle with ex-SMERSH operative and SPECTRE Number #3 Rosa Klebb (played by Lotte Lenya) in a role that, frankly, has come to define the true meaning of "DYKE" in my book (sorry for the very un-PC word there, but just take a look at the character and tell me you don't agree with me. The truth is an ugly and un-PC thing sometimes) and Red Grant, a cunning SPECTRE assassin and one of the most devious enemies Bond has ever faced.

Now speaking of Red Grant, let me get into that character for a moment. Over the course of my childhood in the 1970s and 1980s, I got to know actor Robert Shaw (not personally) a bit in films like THE STING (1973), JAWS (1975), BLACK SUNDAY (1977) and THE DEEP (1977). There is an irresistable intensity and seriousness about him that brings out unforgetable performances in everything he's done. As Grant, though, his dialogue is minimal. In this role, it's his physical presence, his body language and almost creepy silence that makes him a deadly character. Bond history will often cite secondary evil characters as Oddjob (GOLDFINGER) and JAWS (THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and MOONRAKER) as the more memorable ones. But in my book, it's Robert Shaw as Red Grant that gets my vote. As a trademark Bond girl, Daniela Bianchi is beautiful and sexy, but I'm afraid that's about it. Her character is almost pointless except to accompany our hero along the adventure. In other words, she's not the worst Bond girl (Denise Richards still holds that title!), but she's hell and gone from being the best, either.

By the way, the next time I discuss a Bond film, it'll be a double-feature post, so to say. Can you guess what they'll be?

Favorite line or dialogue:

Tatiana Romanova: "The mechanism is...oh James, James...will you make love to me all the time in England?"
James Bond: "Day and night. Go on about the mechanism."

FROM HERE TO ETERNITY

2012-01-29T14:04:00.015-05:00

(August 1953, U.S.)

Some time ago, I gave you my own classifications of war films as being divided into either combat films or war dramas. Every once in a while, though, you'd get a film that combines a touch of both. FROM HERE TO ETERNITY is primarily a war drama, but you do get a little taste of combat in the end. The story deals with the troubles of soldiers and the women in their lives stationed on Hawaii in the months leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Even if you've never seen or even heard of this film, you've very likely seen the iconic image of Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr making out on the beach as a wave breaks over their bodies. Take a look...

I point this out because one of the first elements of FROM HERE TO ETERNITY that captures the eyes is the crisp breathtaking black and white cinematography of the beaches of Hawaii. It's also an intruiging point to know from the beginning that this is a film that takes place in Hawaii in 1941. You don't have to be a genius to how it's all going to turn out in the end. As a viewer, you can't help but take a slightly higher interest in the outcome of the lives of characters that are destined to become a part of world history. Private Robert E. Lee Prewitt (played by Montgomery Clift) is a good man and a good soldier who only wants to do his American duty and avoid the boxing ring due to a past accident, despite the ongoing pressure he's getting from fellow soldiers to be a part of the Army's boxing team. He's a man that's also struggling to love Lorene (played by Donna Reed), an employee at a gentlemen's club, despite his daily anguish and her desire NOT to end up as a soldier's wife. First Sergeant Milton Warden (played by Lancaster) is a man with very much in common with Prewitt, as he, too, struggles with his own pressures as a soldier and his conflict with being in love with his commanding officer's wife Karen (played by Kerr). Life in the military CAN be a bitch, can't it!

The inevitable attack on Pearl Harbor at the end is brief, but filmed with both on location action and with stock footage of the real attack itself and it's explosive aftermath. It's not a film that ends with heroes, but serves rather to remind us that the rather "petty" issues of these men and women that we've been watching for the past two hours have now become virtually non-existent...for the country is now at war and all must come together to fight our enemies. Many will live and many will die, but we already know that America triumphed!

FROM HERE TO ETERNITY won the Oscar for best picture of 1953.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Karen Holmes: "Come back here, Sergeant. I'll tell you the story; you can take it back to the barracks with you. I'd only been married to Dana two years when I found out he was cheating. And by that time I was pregnant. I thought I had something to hope for. I was almost happy the night the pains began. I remember Dana was going to an officers' conference. I told him to get home early, to bring the doctor with him. And maybe he would have...if his "conference" hadn't been with a hat-check girl! He was drunk when he came in at five AM. I was lying on the floor. I begged him to go for the doctor, but he fell on the couch and passed out. The baby was born about an hour later. Of course it was dead. It was a boy. But they worked over me at the hospital, they fixed me up fine, they even took my appendix out - they threw that in free."

FROM DUSK TILL DAWN

2012-01-28T12:31:00.011-05:00

(January 1996, U.S.)

A vampire horror film with the dialogue and wit right out of PULP FICTION? How could that be possible? Vampire films are usually badly acted trash with roman numerals in the title. The answer is very simple, my friends - Quentin Fuckin' Tarantino, that's how! It's actually almost a shame that the film was billed as a vampire adventure from the time of its release because much like Hitchcock's PSYCHO (1960), it's a film that's starts out one way and then shifts gears entirely into a totally different direction. Imagine the shock and surprise audiences with wild imaginations would have experienced if they walked in expecting a heist and getaway film and then ended up with fucking vampires?

Now let me start by saying that I never watched an episode of TV's ER in my life. So FROM DUSK TILL DAWN was really my first exposure to George Clooney, and I have to say, I was absolutely blown away by what a fast talking, sharp shooting, badass criminal motherfucker he was. And speaking as a very self-confident heterosexual make, I can understand why women all over the world wanted to drop their panties for this guy.

So here's how it goes - two brothers Seth (played by Clooney) and Richie Gecko (played by Quentin Tarantino) are wanted by the FBI and Texas police for a bank robbery that has left several people dead. They're heading for the Mexican border, where a contact named Carlos has arranged a safehouse for them. Along the way they stop at a motel and it's revealed that they'd been keeping a female bank teller in their car trunk as hostage. Unfortunately, she doesn't last long because Richie has this nastly tendancy toward rape and violent homicide. Their "plan B" now to get across the border is to kidnap a father, his two teenage kids and their RV. Getting across the border is actually easy and almost immaterial compared with what's going to happen to them when they reach a place called "The Titty Twister" (my kinda place!), open from dusk till dawn.

By the way, let me interrupt for a moment by saying that like Peter Sellers in DR. STRANGELOVE (1964), Cheech Marin plays three different roles in this film. None better, though, than the the doorman Chet Pussy. His welcome speech to the world of pussy that's inside the strip club is one of the funniest things I've ever listened to; worth the price of the movie ticket alone.

So, back in the club, things are getting sexy, crazy and very tense, and that's BEFORE we learn that we're in a club belonging to vampires who have a history of feeding on truckers and bikers for years. But like any other vampire flick, you also have your vampire fighters who ultimately end up being real grande heroes. So Seth, the previous badass criminal motherfucker, is now our biggest hero with a gun and a wooden stake. Vampires die (explode and melt, actually), good guy (and girl) live and all will be right with the world when the evil bank robber gets away and rides off into the sunset with his stolen money. Yes, people, there's nothing like a big beautiful Hollywood ending to put a smile on your face!

Let me reitterate that while this is a vampire film in all its silly traditional sense, it's also primarily a dialogue film, which is what ultimately holds my attention most. Sure, any "twilight" tweenie can be a vampire and any "Buffy" type slut can slay them. But when George Clooney is shooting off his mouth at a constant rate with dialogue written by Quentin Tarantino...that my friends, is a fucking vampire movie!!!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Carlos: "What were they, psychos or...?"
Seth: "They look like psychos? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires! Psychos do not explode when sunlight hist 'em! I don't give a fuck how crazy they are!"

FRIED GREEN TOMATOES

2012-01-26T20:07:00.007-05:00

(December 1991, U.S.)

FRIED GREEN TOMATOES is one of those dramas that I find necessary to revisit every once in a while to remind myself of a time when major studios like Universal were still releasing Oscar-worthy films that didn't involve special effects or any computer generated bullshit. It's also happens to be a damn good movie. It tells the story of a Depression-era friendship between two women, Ruth (played by Mary Louise Parker) and Idgie (played by Mary Stuart Masterson), and a 1980's friendship between Evelyn (played by Kathy Bates), a middle-aged housewife, and Ninny (played by Jessica Tandy), an elderly woman who knew Ruth and Idgie when they were young. The centerpiece and parallel story concerns the murder of Ruth's abusive husband and the accusations that follow. And as a predictable Hollywood move, the lesbian content from the original novel is generally removed. Still, if you're paying close enough attention and reading between the lines, you can clearly see the "intent", no matter how ambiguous.

The film's subplot concerns Evelyn's dissatisfaction with her marriage and her life, her growing confidence, and her developing friendship with Ninny. The narrative switches several times between Ninny's story, which is set between World War I and World War II, and Evelyn's life in 1980's Birmingham. Through Ninny's story of Ruth and Idgie, Evelyn manages to find her own sense of strength and self-worth. It's impressive and even fun to watch her finally takes charge of herself and even display anger that's necessary to combat everyday people who are rude and inconsiderate. The scene with the parking space is practically classic in that I'm sure we're all wanted to take some sort of action against assholes who take the space we were waiting for.

Two spoilers coming now: the final scene of FRIED GREEN TOMATOES is quite intruiging when Evelyn and Ninny pass Ruth's grave (she died young of cancer), freshly adorned with a jar of honey and honeycomb and a card which reads " I will always Love You. The Bee Charmer," Ruth's old nickname for Idgie. It becomes apparent that Ninny WAS Idgie and has been telling the tale of her own life the entire time. It's a revelation that could be called predictable, but it puts an irresistable smile on your face, nonetheless.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Evelyn Couch: "Excuse me, I was waiting for that spot."
Girl #1: "Face it, lady, we're younger and faster!"
(Evelyn gets angry and rear-ends the girl's car six times)
Girl #1: "What are you DOING?"!?
Girl #2: "Are you CRAZY!?"
Evelyn: "Face it, girls, I'm older and I have more insurance."

FRIDAY THE 13TH

2012-01-25T19:49:00.016-05:00

(May 1980, U.S.)

Sometimes in life, we choose to perceive things (and movies) from our own personal perspective as opposed how they actually happened. That being the case, I choose to own and remember the original FRIDAY THE 13TH as a stand-alone horror film released at a time when horror films were being released in droves and at a time when, just like HALLOWEEN (1978), using the name of an actual day of the year that summons up dread would likely mean box office gold. So people, as far as I'm concerned, Jason Voorhees was never the primary antagonist of the movie, there never was a hockey mask, Jason never was in 3D, Jason never ended up in outer space (???) and there never was a crossover with Freddy Kruger. So while you're reading this post, try to open your mind a bit and pretend that this original horror film never eroded into an out-of-control franchise that, in my opinion, defines the horrors of overkill.

As storyline goes, FRIDAY THE 13TH is not the most original thing ever written. The film concerns a group of teenagers who are murdered one-by-one by a mysterious killer while attempting to re-open the abandoned summer Camp Crystal Lake. The key to the creepiness of this film lies in the shadows of the deep, dark woods, the stories and history of the Camp Crystal Lake curse and (as much as I hate to admit it), that kooky "Ch-ch-ch-ha-ha-ha!" musical soundtrack. There's also a particular creepiness in the scene where one of the would-be counselors hears a child-like voice calling "Help me!" from the woods and then she inevitably meets her doom at the archery range during a harsh rain storm. Poor Brenda!

There's something in film script writing known as "set up" and "pay off". In the case of this film, there's a scene in the beginning where a common truck driver warns a young girl about Camp Crystal Lake and very casually mentions a boy drowing in 1957. It's mention very quickly and the first time viewer is very likely to dismiss it immediately. It's only later in the film when that very mild "set up" actually "pays off" when we learn that the boy who drowned in 1957 is the entire reason the murders are taking place by his psychotic, grieving mother. Yes, I have to admit that even I was surprised to learn that the killer was a woman the first time I ever saw FRIDAY THE 13TH. I've also enjoyed the ambiguity of little, demented and disfigured Jason rising out of the lake to take down the only survivor of the night's masacre. Did it really happen? Does Jason really live? Like I said before, this is how I choose to perceive things and not necessarily how they actually happened.

By the way, did you know that Camp Crystal Lake is supposed to be somewhere in New Jersey? As if that poor state didn't need ANOTHER reason to be mocked!

So there you have it people...if you can just choose to ignore all the hockey mask franchise bullshit for just a little while, you're likely to discover (or RE-discover) that the original 1980 version of FRIDAY THE 13TH is actually a worthwhile horror experience. Give it a try.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Alice: "The boy...is he dead, too?"
Officer Tierney: "Who?"
Alice: "The boy...Jason."
Tierney: "Jason?"
Alice: "In the lake, the one...the one who attacked me...the one who pulled me underneath the water."
Tierney: "Ma'am, we didn't find any boy."
Alice: "But...then he's still there."

Yes, and that's where Jason should've stayed!

FRENCH CONNECTION, THE

2012-01-24T08:15:00.009-05:00

(October 1971, U.S.)

To put it simply and plainly, William Friedkin's THE FRENCH CONNECTION is, has always been, and will continue to be my all-time favorite crime thriller. Especially today, when our society has become so pathetically concerned with being so verbally politically correct and watching what we say around others, it's almost refreshing to return to a character like Jimmy 'Popeye' Doyle, a Brookly narcotics detective who is, in my opinion, exactly what every movie cop should be; a though, no-nonsense racist pig!

Now, you may have heard me tell you what a shithole I think Brooklyn is. Well, this is 1971, and as you watch the movie, it's difficult to imagine Brooklyn (and ALL of New York City, for that matter) to be any more ridden with crime and filth than it does at this time. But a hard edge thriller of this sorts would likely not work today in a city that has gotten "cleaned up" over the last two decades. If you ever lived in or grew up around Manhattan or Brooklyn, it can be quite a visual trip looking at the city as it appeared forty years ago, especially if you happen to catch a glimpse of one of the twin towers of the World Trade Center still under construction.

The film revolves around the smuggling of narcotics between Marseilles, France and New York City. In New York, detectives Doyle (played by Gene Hackman) and Buddy 'Cloudy' Russo (played by the great Roy Scheider) are the ones who almost accidentally stumble upon a possible major narcotics score that going to come into New York in the next few days and proceed to investigate "the French connection" in the case. Doyle becomes obssessed with not only breaking the case, but also catching Alain Charnier (played by Fernando Rey), the French criminal responsible for smuggling the heroin from France to the United States. Much of the film serves as a game of cat-and-mouse between cops and criminals and it's impossible not to become caught up in every step of the action, especially with the accompanying soundtrack. Doyle is a good cop but the man hates, too; hates criminals, hates the FBI and hates the rich. Watch carefully, the contempt on his face as he stands outside in the brutal and depressing New York cold weather staking out two criminals across the street enjoying a luxurious lunch at a fancy French restaurant while he feasts on a mere slice of pizza and some very bad coffee.

Getting back to the action, let's talk about that incredible car chase for a moment. With all due respect to Steve McQueen in BULLIT (1968), it's an almost psychotic Doyle chasing an elevated subway train through the streets of Brooklyn that has and always will get my personal award for best car chase scene in a film EVER! If you've seen this, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. You'll also know that this sequence was filmed on location with a real car and a real driver. Yes, it was all real. No computer or special effects bullshit here!

THE FRENCH CONNECTION is not only a film I enjoy revisiting when I want the best damn crime thriller ever made, but also a rather bizarre nostolgic look back at New York City and how it used to look , good or bad. It's also a story that I like to leave ambiguous in my own mind when Charnier gets away at the end. In other words, I choose to ignore the fact that there was a FRENCH CONNECTION II four years later.

THE FRENCH CONNECTION won the Oscar for best picture of 1971. It was also the first R-rated film to do so since the introduction of the MPAA film rating system.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Jimmy: "You dumb guinea."
Buddy: "How the hell was I supposed to know he had a knife?"
Jimmy: "Never trust a nigger."
Buddy: "He could have been white."
Jimmy: "Never trust anyone!"

See what I mean? Very "un-PC" dialogue, but it still works for the character and the setting.

FRANKENSTEIN

2012-01-24T07:59:00.009-05:00

(November 1931, U.S.)

In 1931, Frank Whale's film version of Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN was indeed the horror show of the ages. The film begins with actor Edward Van Sloan stepping from behind a curtain and delivering a "friendly warning" before the opening credits:

"How do you do. We are about to unfold the story of Frankenstein, a man of science who sought to create a man after his own image without reckoning upon God. It is one of the strangest tales ever told. It deals with the two great mysteries of creation – life and death. I think it will thrill you. It may shock you. It might even – horrify you. So if any of you feel that you do not care to subject your nerves to such a strain, now's your chance to – uh, well, we warned you."

Imagine sitting in the movie theater in 1931 and hearing those piercing words and wondering in frightening anticipation what was to come on the screen. Imagine sitting there and seeing Boris Karloff in that scary makeup and flat head staring you in the face for the first time and feeling the shivers travel up and down your spine. It's probably difficult to do given the extremes that horror films have gone to over the decades, but on the other hand, if you're sitting in a dark living room and watching a real sharp DVD copy of FRANKENSTEIN, you just might feel an ounce of those shivers I was talking about, even in this modern day and age.

The use of one's open mind and imagination is key not only in the horror of Karloff's appearance, but also in the premise of an eccentric scientist taking the laws of life, death man and God into his own hands as he attempts to create his own human being in his own image by stealing dead body parts from frest graves and brains from medical college classrooms. It's inevitable that the creation will ultimately turn on his creator, as well as surrounding society itself. Many film scholars will note that the creature is supposed to be a sympathetic character, but I've always found that a difficult premise to accept when witnessing the horror and havoc the monster causes throught the village. Even when he's being hunted by the villagers and it appears that he will burn to death in the windmill inferno, his ear-piercing harsh screams are still frightening and one can't help but feel that the creature MUST die.

If you're not already aware of this, the film has an interesting history of censorship issues regarding the scene in which the monster throws the little girl into the lake and accidentaly drowns her. Upon it original 1931 release, the second part of this scene was cut by state censorship boards in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York. Those states also objected to a line they considere blasphemous, during Dr. Henry Frankenstein's exuberance when he first leans that his creature is alive and openly declares himself on par with the likes and powers of God himself. Those sequences were tragically cut from the film over the years but thankfully, over additional time, those points of controversay have been restored to the film's original intent, as they should be.

FRANKENSTEIN may not have been the very first of the legendary Universal Studios monster movies (DRACULA was), but it is, by far, the best of all that have ever been made, in my opinion. It's a trademark of true classic horror and a remainder to my own personal memories of all those late night horror movie TV presentations like "Fright Night" and "Chiller Theater". And by the way, when exactly did the name lf "Frankenstein" eventually pertain to the monster himself when its original intention was for that of the doctor himself? When did that happen?

Favorite line or dialogue:

Henry Frankenstein: "Look! It's moving. It's alive. It's alive...it's alive, it's moving, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, IT'S ALIVE!"
Victor Moritz: "Henry, in the name of God!"
Henry: "Oh, in the name of God! Now I know what it feels like to be God!"

FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL

2012-01-24T07:44:00.013-05:00

(March 1994, U.S.)

What exactly is it about British comedy in that all anyone has to do is merely say something, anything, and somehow there's a degree of wit to it that will have me laughing before I can even think about what's really so funny about it? Really, sometimes if I really want to just laugh, I'll watch a standup DVD by Eddie Izzard or any number of episodes of FAWLTY TOWERS or MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS. Perhaps, though, that's just me.

FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL follows the adventures of a group of friends through the eyes of Charles (played by Hugh Grant), a debonair but faux pas-prone Englishman, who is just smitten with Carrie, an attractive American (played Andie MacDowell), who Charles repeatedly meets at four weddings and at a funeral (get it?). They hit it off almost immediately and end up sleeping together and saying goodbye faster than you can say, "I cheated on Elizabeth Hurley!" What Charles doesn't count on is being invited to Carrie's own wedding in Scotland. He later tries to confess his inevitable love to her and hints that he would like to have a relationship with her. However, he says it rather lamely, and the confession obviously comes too late. Unfortunately, it's at her wedding that one of the group of friends has a heart attack and dies (hence the funeral).

Now the interesting twist here is that the final wedding turns out to be Charles' own, but it appears he's only marrying out of convenience and also because it appears he's lost Carrie. Not so. She actually shows up at the wedding and lets Charles know her marriage didn't last. Uh-oh! What's poor Charlie gonna do now on the day of his wedding? The answer, in case you haven't seen this film, lies in your own preference of DVD rental.

FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL is sly and delightful and directed with a very light-hearted enchantment. Hugh Grant's performance gives off what can only be described as an endearing awkwardness that you can't help but laugh at. Like I said, there's just something about those British.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Charles: "Ehm, look. Sorry, sorry. I just, ehm, well, this is a very stupid question and...particularly in view of our recent shopping excursion, but I just wondered, by any chance, ehm, eh, I mean obviously not because I guess I've only slept with nine people, but, but I, I just wondered...ehh. I really feel, ehh, in short, to recap it slightly in a clearer version, eh, the words of David Cassidy in fact, eh, while he was still with the Partridge family, eh, "I think I love you," and eh, I, I just wondered by any chance you wouldn't like to...eh...eh...no, no, no of course not...I'm an idiot, he's not...excellent, excellent, fantastic, eh, I was gonna say lovely to see you, sorry to disturb...better get on..."

42ND STREET

2012-01-21T16:43:00.008-05:00

(February 1933, U.S.)

There is a particular art house movie theater in Greenwich Village, New York City called the Film Forum that I have frequented from time to time whenever I wanted to see a vintage revival on screen. Back in 2009, when we were knee-deep in our economic recession, the theater screened a series of films and double features under the theme of "Depression Era" films. One of these double features was the original version of KING KONG (1933) and...you guessed it...42ND STREET. By way of story, the two of them obviously have nothing to do with each other, except the locale of New York City during the time of the Depression when economic struggle of the comman citizen was at it's highest in history. 42ND STREET, for it's era, has all the glamour and the glitz of the magic of Broadway, but also manages to stress the idea that America is in a Depression and that stage performers, like the common citizen, are struggling to work and survive, as well.

Now you've heard me say more than once that I generally don't like musicals, and I still don't. However, when you're dealing with a story about a stage production, it's a story where song and dance go hand-in-hand with the exhausting daily grind of bringing a new musical stage show to life. In other words, actors and actresses are not just breaking out into song and dance like some bad episode of GLEE. The music and dancing is part of the show and therefore an essential part of the working film. To be perfectly honest, though, the songs are incredibly dated and corny and I find most of the dancing that takes place to be rather mechanical looking. On the other hand, it's the intense drama of the dancers and the show's director that keeps your attention going throughout the film.

In noting the era of the early 1930s when this film takes place, I have to point out that the characters we see behind the production are absolutely NOTHING like the stereotypical effeminate gay men you'd likely see on screen today. The director Julian Marsh (played by Warren Baxter), much like Roy Scheider in ALL THAT JAZZ (1979) is harsh and demanding but also the best at what he does. And even though it's a era of movie innocence, you can't help but get the feeling he'd sleep with every dancer in the chorus if he could. The show's assistants are not what you'd expect, either. They actually dress and talk like Prohibition gangsters rather than traditional Broadway lyricists and choreographers. Go figure.

One of the particularly interesting things I have to also note about 42ND STREET is watching its original trailer. This was a film that was released only a few years after talking pictures ("Talkies") were all the new rage. It was being billed as a spectacularly new screen experience. Yes, for its era, it's quite possible 42ND STREET was one of the earliest screen blockbusters out there...and it WASN'T in 3D!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Andy: "How's the turnout, Mac?"
Mac: "About fifty-fifty. Half are dumb and the other half are dumber!"

48 HRS.

2012-01-19T12:27:00.008-05:00

(December 1982, U.S.)

I haven't seen Eddie Murphy's last movie TOWER HEIST yet. I understand it wasn't that great, but I can certainly appreciate why people were looking forward to it with such anticipation. Finally, after two decades, people were going to see a return to screen of the rude Eddie, the crude Eddie, and the vulgar Eddie we all first saw on screen with Nick Nolte in Walter Hill's 48 HRS.; a film often credited as being the first "buddy cop" film that would inevitably spawn a genre throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

One of the first things I have to say about this film is that I think it's the only one I've ever seen that makes the city of San Francisco look like as much of a shithole as Los Angeles or New York City. This is a precedent with me because just about every film I've ever seen that took place in San Francisco depicted the "city by the bay" with the beauty of the Golden Gate Bridge and what not. But this is seedy crime film with two psychotic cop killers on the loose being hunted down by tough, grungy cop Jack Cates (Nolte) and convicted criminal Reggie Hammond (Murphy), so I guess nothing about the film is supposed to be pretty. Truth be told, in my opinion, as funny as Eddie Murphy can be in the right role, I don't consider 48 HRS. one of the funniest films I've ever seen, but rather one of the best and toughest police/crime films I've ever seen. The violence is pretty much what you'd expect and in all the right places. The character of Albert Ganz (played by James Remar) is a frightening one as you watch him freely killing innocent people and assorted cops with the greatest of pleasurable ease. That sort of violent character only makes for a greater viewing pleasure when he finally goes down at the hands of the tough cop.

Now here's a couple of personal notes about 48 HRS. and me. It was only the fifth R-rated movie I'd ever seen at the tender age of fifteen and I managed to see it when attending a screening of GANDHI (1982) at a multiplex with my parents. I'd already seen GANDHI before on a high school class trip, so somewhere during its progress, I whispered to my father that I was going to walk into another theater and see 48 HRS. My father was so engrossed with GANDHI that he barely paid attention to me and gave me the okay. When 48 HRS. was over, I went back to my parents where GANDHI still had some time to go. Sometimes a long epic can be your best friend when you want to see something that's not necessarily for kids. Another thing to know is that it was the first time I'd ever heard "Roxanne" by The Police. That's right, I heard Eddie Murphy sing it before I heard Sting sing it! How sad is that?? Finally, it was the first time I'd ever seen Annette O'Toole and she looked incredibly hot. It's safe to say I had a crush on her for some time. At least, until I saw her in SUPERMAN III (1983). Then the crush went away.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Reggie Hammond: "And I want the rest of you cowboys to know somethin'...there's a new sheriff in town...and his name is Reggie Hammond! Y'all be cool! Right on!"

1408

2012-01-18T08:32:00.007-05:00

(June 2007, U.S.)

Stephen King has taken us to the haunted hotel before. I don't even have to tell you the title because you already know. In 1408, though, the terror is centered on just one particular room. The rest of the ficticious Dolphin Hotel in New York City functions quite normally. John Cusack's character, Mike Enslin, a hack writer of supposedly haunted places to stay in America, says something rather thought-provoking in the film and it goes something like this..."Hotels are a naturally creepy place...just think, how many people have slept in that bed before you? How many of them were sick? How many...died?". Yes, that's something you may not be thinking about the next time you check into the nieghborhood Marriot, but it certainly makes a more than valid point. Just who was in that room before you and what were they doing??

We've all been through the classic haunting tale before, and some of them in their own unique way, are very creepy to watch. The one cliche element that I've never gotten tired of, though, is the classic warning that the hero of our story should "stay away from that place". Hotel manager Gerold Olin (played by Samuel L. Jackson) maintains a very professional charm as he repeatedly warns (and begs) Mike Enslin NOT to stay in room 1408. Besides the classic warning of those who have died in that room before (56 deaths total!), he also maintains the fact that no guest has ever lasted more than an hour in that room. The room seems to know that, too, because one of the first things it does to spook Mike out is to set the room digital clock to sixty minutes and then proceeds to count down. The room is filled with its predictable cliche of scary jolts and screams. Cliche or not, though, they can get to you if you open up your imagination well enough. What I find a particularly interesting twist is the fact that Mike is constantly recording what happens around him into his little micro-cassette recorder. It's more than simple narration of events. You actually get to experience his fear as it slowly progress during what is supposed to be only one hour of his life. We're not only experiencing the haunting of a hotel room, but also the journey into the slow deterioration of Mike's mind and his sanity. Even when we think Mike has come out of it okay and that the whole thing may have been a harsh halucination as a result of a surfing accident, it shocking to see that we as the viewer have been deceived, perhaps more than once.

Theatrically-released Stephen King films have always been a hit and miss thing, in my opinion. For every smash hit like CARRIE (1976), THE SHINING (1980) and MISERY (1990), you have to also put up with duds like CUJO (1983), FIRESTARTER (1984) and MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE (1986). 1408, I can gladly say, is one of those little Stephen King gems that gets right to the fear and terror of the classic haunting story. What's not to love abouth that, right?

Favorite line or dialogue:

Mike Enslin: "The room's gotta be filthy. I mean, the sheets haven't been changed in...what, eleven years?"
Gerald Olin: "No, no, no. We're very professional here. 1408 gets a light turn once a month. I supervise, the maids work in pairs. We treat the room as if it's a chamber filled with poison gas. We only stay ten minutes and I insist the door remain open. But still...a few years ago a young maid from El Salvador found herself locked in the bathroom. She was only there for a few moments, but when we pulled her out she was..."
Mike: "She was dead?"
Gerald: "No. Blind. She had taken a pair of scissors and gouged her eyes out. She was laughing hysterically."

FOUR SEASONS, THE

2012-01-16T08:09:00.013-05:00

(May 1981, U.S.)

In 1981, even at the age of fourteen, I already had an appreciation for so-called "slice of life" movies about grown ups. In other words, I was not the type who would have gone for "Twilight" movies or anything of the sort. But even during a summer that was dominated by Superman, James Bond and a new guy named Indiana Jones, the prospect of seeing a comedy with Carol Burnett and that funny guy from TV's M.A.S.H. seemed attractive enough.

The story of THE FOUR SEASONS is a very simple one revolving around three married couples who take vacations together during each of the seasons. After this pattern has been established, Nick (played by Len Cariou) leaves his annoying wife of twenty-one years for a much younger and sexier woman, Ginny (played by Bess Armstrong). He then proceeds to bring Ginny on the usual vacation trips, causing the other two couples to be uncomfortable, feeling as if they have betrayed the former wife who is now out of the picture. Alan Alda's character of Jack is rather the dominating one of the group who has a constant need to psycho-analyze every situation that takes place among the group, and frankly, the rest of the group have had enough of it and are ready to confront him with it. Nick (played by Jack Weston) is a constant neurotic who's irrational fear of death and a desire to be the foremost authority on everything from beans to the mating habits of the Newt is also an ongoing annoyance with the group.

Now, did you happen to notice that I was only speaking of the MEN here? That's no accident. The film itself only seems to focus on the quirky characteristics of the men in the group and the women are here only to serve as the "tag along" wives whose sole purposes are offer the cliche elements of maritial love and support. You see? It was already the 1980s, and clearly, women's roles in movies still had a very long way to go.

As I got older and continued to appreciate this film, I always thought it would be great to have very special friends in my life to take vacations with. I still do (I can very easily picutre myself jumping into the lake just to create a moment of laughter and insanity). However, as I've gotten older I've also gotten more impatient and more intolerant and this is NOT a great combination when traveling and spending a good deal of time with other people. As you may well know, it's very often the people you spend time with the most and whom you love the most that will piss you off beyond belief.

Now here's a rather amusing story to go witht his film. When I was a kid, my parents had rather an unreasonably restrictive attitute toward how often I went to the movies in any given time period. During a summer when I was just waiting in vain for RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK to finally come to the local movie theater in Westhampton Beach, Long Island, I ended up seeing a number of "filler" movies like HISTORY OF THE WORLD-PART I, THE CANNONBALL RUN and THE FOUR SEASONS. While I did enjoy THE FOUR SEASONS, I'm forced to admit that the only real reason I wanted to see it was because it was an opportunity to see a movie with the girl next door, whom I'll confess I had a lustful attraction to. So guess what happened after that? You guessed it! RAIDERS finally came to town and my parents wouldn't take me to see it because they'd concluded that I'd already been to the movies too many times that summer. I would have to wait until Spring 1982 to see RAIDERS upon its re-release. You see what happens when you think with your dick instead of your head, even at the age of fourteen??

Favorite line or dialogue:

Danny Zimmer: "Well, I don't understand how you can hurt someone as guileless and vulnerable as Ginny."
Claudia Zimmer: "She sure took on a lot of mystical qualities once you saw her swimming naked."
Danny: "How can you say that?"
Claudia: "I say what I think."
Danny: "Well, maybe that's the problem! Why do you always say what you think? I mean, do you think your thoughts should just fall down from your brain onto your tongue like a gumball machine?"
Claudia: "Danny, I'm not going to start watching what I think or what I feel! I'm Italian!"
Danny: "I know you're Italian! I don't want to hear anymore how you're Italian!"
(opens window and sticks his head out)
"Hey, out there! This woman is Italian!
(faces back to Claudia)
"You no longer have to announce your ethnic origin in this state! Everyone in Connecticut knows you're Italian! And when we cross the border, I'll take out an ad in the New York Times!"

FOUNTAINHEAD, THE

2012-01-14T14:27:00.014-05:00

I'm an architect (or at least I play one in real life). You know what this means? This means that almost by law, I was required to read Ayn Rand's THE FOUNTAINHEAD, and an easy read, it's not. The book is at at least three inches thick and its philosophies take time and patience to absorb. However, once you've completed the novel, it's impossible not to walk away re-evaluating your own sense of values, even if you're not an architect.

At it's heart, THE FOUNTAINHEAD is the story of architect Howard Roark who must stand alone against the rest of the world in order to maintain his own personal sense of values, standards and self-worth. But more than that, THE FOUNTAINHEAD challanges the reader (and the film viewer) on the philosophy of selfishness and questions the easy willingness to compromise their ideals, resulting in potential greatness being dragged down by the "mob" mentality of other human beings to the level of everyday mediocrity. It also grants a moral sanction for people to believe in themselves, their dreams and their aspirations without asking anyone's permission, free of committees, collective thinking or the perceived need to seek approval from others. And what happens when our ideas and work are deliberately compromised or altered by the ignorant power of others? Do we have the right to take our own work back and completely destroy it, if need be? Howard Roark believes he does when a building he designed by his own mind and hand is erected as a completely society-conforming piece of mediocrity. He literally destroys the building before it can be completed and then stands trial for his crime (was it a crime?) with the entire city seemingly against him, calling for his blood. I won't tell you how it all turns out. That's up to you.

All of that is pretty deep and thought-provoking, indeed. One can only try to imagine the challenge Warner Brothers faced in trying to bring this epic novel to screen and maintain a level of cinematic entertainment as well as it's serious topics. Gary Cooper as Howard Roark pulls the character off just about as well as any other movie star from the 1940s might have. Patricia Neal as Domonique Francon is solid, but I can't help but wonder what Barbara Stanwick might have been like in the role, whom I understand campaigned for it almost as soon as the book was published. As a classic black and white version which consolidates the entire novel in just under two hours, it works as well as can be expected for movie making during the golden age of cinema. However, I dare say THE FOUNTAINHEAD is one of those rare stories that could use a complete make-over in the form of a week long television mini-series.

All that having been said, I'm going to dive into a personal theory of my own regarding THE FOUNTAINHEAD and it's Hollywood film version. Follow me on this, okay...Ayn Rand wrote the film's screenplay based on her own work. Now bearing in mind the strong philosophies and convictions the author speaks of, it would have been safe to assume than Rand would have written a screenplay that faithfully adapted her own work without the burden of Hollywood changes and edits. However, as mentioned earlier, the film comes in at just under two hours, jumps through the storyline very quickly at times and manages to completely eliminate major characters and plot points. Do you all see what I'm leading up to?? If Rand truly believed in her own convictions and beliefs, then why did she seemingly sell herself out so easily to the pressures of Hollywood cuts and edits? Did she give in and sell her soul just like the rest of human kind or were her philosophies and convictions nothing but pure fiction from the beginning? I suppose that's a debatable argument that could go on for a long time, but it's a point I've never been able to shake since the first time I saw the film.

By the way, those of you who are fans of the legendary rock back RUSH will likely know that many of their song lyrics were inspired by the words of Ayn Rand. Consider the lyrics from just a few of their most popular songs...

- WITCH HUNT (from Moving Pictures): "They say there is strangeness to danger us in our theatres and bookstore shelves, that those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves".

- VITAL SIGNS (also from Moving Pictures): "Everybody got mixed feelings about the function and the form. Everybody got to deviate from the norm".

- SUBDIVISIONS (from Signals): "Opinions all provided, the future pre-decided, detached and subdivided in the mass production zone. Nowhere is the dreamer or the misfit so alone".

Man, I love that band!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Howard Roark: "I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live. My ideas are my property. They were taken from me by force, by breach of contract. No appeal was left to me. It was believed that my work belonged to others, to do with as they pleased. They had a claim upon me without my consent. That is was my duty to serve them without choice or reward. Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt. I designed Cortlandt, I made it possible, I destroyed it. I agreed to design it for the purpose of seeing it built as I wished. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid. My building was disfigured at the whim of others who took all the benefits of my work and gave me nothing in return. I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy, nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim. It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing. I came here to be heard. In the name of every man of independence still left in the world. I wanted to state my terms. I do not care to work or live on any others. My terms are a man's right to exist for his own sake."

Cheers, Howard!

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY

2012-01-11T08:40:00.007-05:00

(June 1981, U.S.)

During my time as a film fan, I've come to classify James Bond films under three rather distinct personal categories. The first would be the "I love this Bond movie!" (GOLDFINGER, THUNDERBALL, MOONRAKER). The second would be the "It's not the best, but I still enjoy it (THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, OCTOPUSSY) and finally the third would be the "Man, this movie sucks!" (THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, DIE ANOTHER DAY). So that in mind, I'd put the twelfth James Bond film FOR YOUR EYES ONLY in the second category. At least Roger Moore remains.

After going pretty much "jumping the shark" with MOONRAKER (1979) in the last installment, there was almost no choice but for the Bond franchise to start over and get back to the basics of reality. New director (John Glen), new musical composer (Bill Conti), new actor in a vague substitute role of "M" (because actor Bernard Lee was dead now) and no real high-tech gadgetry or weaponry that we'd seen twice now under Lewis Gilbert's direction. We also got to see Sheena Easton sing her popular title song during the opening credits; something that had never been done before. In short, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was another James Bond "re-boot". I'm also of the opinion that the marketing department for this film knew exactly what it was doing when it pulled audiences into the movie theaters with perhaps the promise of strong sexual tones by designing a movie poster that featured a woman's fine, long legs and great ass! Hell, I was just fourteen years old in 1981 and the only real reason I wanted to see this film was because of that great poster (look at it!). MAD Magazine even titled its spoof on this film "FOR HER THIGHS ONLY". I'm not kidding! Look it up!

Interestingly, the film begins by finally putting the cap on an old issue in the franchise and that's James Bond's arch enemy, Ernst Stavro Blofeld; last seen in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (1971) but still not defeated. Though the man in the wheelchair is never officially identified as Blofeld, it seems pretty obvious to any real James Bond fan. The opening is exciting to watch and amusing to see how Blofeld finally meets his end. The rest of the film's plotline, in which Bond must stop a well-connected Greek businessman and intelligence informant from obtaining the Automatic Targeting Attack Communicator (ATAC), the system used by the Ministry of Defence to communicate with and co-ordinate the Royal Navy's fleet of Polaris submarines, is average storytellin, at best. If the bad guy gets hold of that thing, then the Royal's Navy's submarines could be ordered to destroy each other. Honestly, I think this premise (or something very close) has been done more than once in the Bond franchise and the story here is very formulaic; the typical beautiful Bond girl, the threat against the world, the frighteningly evil man in the spirit of "Oddjob" or "Jaws" and the resolution in the end that saves the day. In most cases the formula always works enough to keep you interest. However, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY sufferes greatly from a very unexciting, anti-climactic ending when the villian is only quietly defeated with a knife in his back. Even the mountain climbing sequence lacks it full potential due to the absense of music. I'm sure the film makers thought they were creating a sense of true tension with that move, but it just didn't work for me without the music.

But I can say there are enough exciting action sequences and good enough acting here (plus a GREAT movie poster!) to put FOR YOUR EYES ONLY in the second category I mentioned above, which in my opinion, is more than sufficient to put this James Bond film in my film collection.

The WORST line in the history of the James Bond franchise:

Blofeld: "Mr Bond! We can do a deal! I'll buy you a delicatessen! In stainless steel!"

FORREST GUMP

2012-01-10T08:25:00.016-05:00

(July 1994, U.S.)

It's almost uncanny how we all fell in love with FORREST GUMP nearly two decades ago, although the story of the world seen through the eyes of a mere simpleton was not exectly new on the screen. Peter Sellers had done it fifteen years prior in BEING THERE (1979) and it was one of the best roles of his career. In Robert Zemeckis' film, though, the story depicts several decades in the life of Forrest Gump (played by the great Tom Hanks), a naive and slow-witted native of Alabama who witnesses, and in some cases influences, some of the defining events of the latter half of the 20th century. Intruiging, as well, are the extensive visual effects that were used to incorporate Hanks' character into actual archived historical footage and with actual historical figueres in order to develop scenes further. Take a look at a sample...

(Oh, yeah, and there was that whole box of chocolates thing).

Forrest Gump is, indeed, not a smart man. But this film shows that even the dumbest of people can have the simplest philosophies that will sustain them through their lives. In Forrest's case, his simplicity lies in that he always listens to his mama (played by Sally Field), he loves only his Jenny (played by Robin Wright), he maintains a neverending loyalty to his best friends Lt. Dan Daylor and "Bubba" (Gary Sinise and Mykelti Williamson) and he runs great distances to find his own personal meaning and purposes. I suppose if you're a true optimist of life (which I'm NOT!), that may be all you need to get by.

Regarding Forrest's love and loyalty to Jenny, while incredibly admirable, there are times when watching the film where I consider Forrest an absolute schmuck in that regard. After all, Jenny treats him like dirt and abandons him more than once in the film. Who would continue to love a girl like that?? Apparantly, only Forrest Gump would. It can be justified that it all pays off in the end as he finally wins her heart and becomes the father of the child she bore him (unknownst to him for years). And it's the child that ultimately becomes Forrest's destiny. Because, according to this film, no matter what we've done or where we've been in our lives, nothing is more important or rewarding than the joy of fatherhood. I suppose there's no argument in that.

There's one particular scene that has always stayed with me since first seeing this film. After Jenny has died and Forrest has walked away from her headstone, he sees a flock of birds flying overhead, symbolic of how when Forrest and Jenny were children she prayed to be turned into a bird so she could "fly far, far away" from her troubled life. Yes, symbolism can be very corny, but it can also touch the heart if you let it.

FORREST GUMP won the Oscar for best picture of 1994. And as much as I love the film, and will continue to love it, I've always believed that PULP FICTION is the film that SHOULD have won. Oh, well.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Forrest Gump: "Will you marry me? I'd make a good husband?"
Jenny Curran: "You would, Forrest."
Forrest: "But you won't marry me."
Jenny: "You don't wanna marry me."
Forrest: "Why don't you love me, Jenny? I'm not a smart man...but I know what lovie is."

FORBIDDEN PLANET

2012-01-09T08:27:00.009-05:00

(April 1956, U.S.)

FORBIDDEN PLANET is one of those incredibly dated films that I can only close my eyes and try to imagine what it must have been like to be kid in 1956 seeing its science fiction wonders for the first time on screen in "Cinemascope" at a Saturday matinee movie theater. Incredibly dated, indeed, as compared to the likes of everything we've ever seen on the big screen since Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It should also be noted to all fans of the original STAR TREK who have never seen this film, that FORBIDDEN PLANET contains many of the elements that would eventually create the mega-TV hit; a starship cruiser with a witty captain and his loyal crew exploring strange new worlds and boldly going where no man has gone before. Yes, all you "Trekkies", before STAR TREK ever went on the air, there was FORBIDDEN PLANET!

From the moment the crew of the United Planets Cruiser C57-D arrives at the planet Altair IV, they're warned by Doctor Morbius (played by Walter Pigeon) to stay away, as their is some sort of unknown planetary force that could easily destroy them all. But Commander John J. Adams (played by Leslie Neilson, before he became the funny poster boy for all those spoof films) is under orders to survey and investigate things there, regardless of any warnings. The planet, as it turns out, is quite beautiful and stunning in its imagery. Our introduction to Robby the Robot may as well be a precursor to meeting See-Threepio decades later, as they both contain the same programs of languange and servitude. Robby, however, is not nearly as effeminate as See-Threepio (but that's another issue entirely).

Following the visual wonders of this new planet, the danger begins and memebers of the crew begin to die. What is destroying them, however, is very unclear, as we're only shown a figure of animation (courtesy of Disney studios on loan, by the way) that only resembles a very angry monster of sorts. This is where we're introduced to the concept of "monsters from the Id", the portion of the brian that seemingly houses all of our primitive and savage urges, including the will to commit murder. And so, in a concept that must have been pretty damn high for small children who went to see this G-rated movie, we learn that the "monsters from the Id" have been stored in the subconscious of Dr. Morbius himself, as he was responsible for unknowingly murdering his own people and members of C57-D's crew while he slept. Like I said, very high concept, but then again most of the really intelligent science fiction films are.

So, dated or not, FORBIDDEN PLANET is a visual and acting experience that should be appreciated. Without its imagination, we might never have known 2001, STAR WARS, ALIEN or even AVATAR...and wouldn't that have been a shame?

Favorite line or dialogue:

Commander John J. Adams: "Nice climate you have here. High oxygen content.
Robby the Robot: "I seldom use it myself, sir. It promotes rust."

FOG, THE

2012-01-07T13:42:00.005-05:00

(February 1980, U.S.)

John Carpenter's THE FOG may be a more significant horror film than you might think. After the incredible success of HALLOWEEN (1978), this follow-up puts Carpenter right at the peak of his craft during a six period that I personally consider to be the best of his career (frankly, after STARMAN, I never enjoyed another thing that he did. He's still a masterful musical composer, though). THE FOG also solidified Jamie Lee Curtis as the "queen of scream"...at least until she started making some non-horror films. THE FOG is also one of those rare horror films that takes place in a coastal setting. Let's face it, the beach and the sea may be beautiful, but they can also be very creepy if you have the right kind of weather to go with it.

So, for THE FOG, we visit the fictitious northern California town of Antonio Bay which is about to celebrate its centennial. This event is also marked by a series of ominous events; as the witching hour strikes and the date of the town's centennial begins (April 21st), various odd phenomena begin to happen all over the sleeping town (objects move by themselves, television sets turn themselves on, gas stations seemingly come to life, and all the public payphones ring simultaneously). We've also been exposed to a secret diary revealing that in 1880, six of the founders of Antonio Bay (including the town priest's grandfather) deliberately sank and plundered a clipper ship named the Elizabeth Dane. The ship was owned by Blake, a wealthy man with leprosy who wanted to establish a colony near Antonio Bay. During an unearthly foggy night, the six conspirators lit a fire on the beach near treacherous rocks, and the crew of the ship, deceived by the false beacon, crashed into them. Everyone aboard the ship perished in the icy water. The six conspirators were motivated both by greed and disgust at the notion of having a leper colony nearby. The town of Antonio Bay and its sacred church were then founded with the gold plundered from the ship. Thought-provoking events, indeed, that have now put a curse on the town, because the residents are going to pay with their lives when the dead of the Elizabeth Dane rise out of the fog one hundred years later and take their revenge against the descendants of those that conspired against them.

You see, people...sometimes a rather intruiging plotline CAN make for a better and creepier horror film!

I mentioned earlier how original I consider the locale of a coastal town to be for a horror film. I should also mention how original I consider the lighthouse radio staion to be, as well. The lighthouse not only represents the uneasy feeling of absolute isolation from the world, but also provides the lone DJ Stevie Wayne (played by Adrienne Barbeau) who not only watches over the calm sea to search for the fog, but also serves as the town protector in a way, as she uses her position of radio communication to warn the town citizens of what's about to happen to them.

THE FOG is not only true spook at its best, but one of my personal favorite horror films of all time. It's one of those rare treats you can enjoy on a cold night all by yourself at an isolated house on the beach with no neighbors around you (other than JAWS, anyway).

Favorite line or dialogue:

Stevie Wayne: "I don't know what happened to Antonio Bay tonight. Something came out of the fog and tried to destroy us. In one moment, it vanished. But if this has been anything but a nightmare, and if we don't wake up to find ourselves safe in our beds, it could come again. To the ships at sea who can hear my voice, look across the water, into the darkness. Look for THE FOG."

FLYING TIGERS

2012-01-05T20:26:00.009-05:00

(October 1942, U.S.)

During World War II, there was no greater movie hero than the great John Wayne! However, I'm convinced that just about every character he played in nearly every war film he did was pretty much the same guy! He was often a military commander who cared for his men, but would not take any crap from them and would harden his heart and distance himself if it meant keeping them safe and winning the day against the enemy. Hoever, redundant or not, during a time when Americans were rallied against the Japanese and our patriotism was at its peak, this was probably just the way we wanted "the Duke" to be. It should be noted, though, that FLYING TIGERS was Wayne's first war film and also one of the first films (if not THE first film) to make use of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which had only occurred eleven months prior. It would seem that American movie audiences were not only ready to address what had happened on screen, but were also ready to see "the Japs" get their asses kicked by some good 'ol fashioned American military heroes!

And so, the great John Wayne in this film leads the Flying Tigers, a legendary unit not sanctioned by the American government at the time. The pilots are the usual mixed bunch, motivated by money (as they receive a bounty for each aircraft shot down), patriotism or just for the thrill of aerial combat. These black and white sequences of aerial combat, by the way, are some of the best you're likely to see on screen for that particular era. However, their motivations, whatever they might be, are suddenly altered and put to the real test following the events of December 7, 1941. Money no longer matters. Patriotism and victory against the Japanese empire will surely win the day and it'll feel damn good to be an American. It's just a shame that Hollywood could not have returned to that old fashioned American spirit after 9/11. Perhaps that was when we need John Rambo the most; fighting Al Qaeda!

One thing that does irritate me, though, in FLYING TIGERS is this constantly repeated camera shot of the Japanese pilots holding their faces in agony whenever one of their planes is hit by bullets. They ridiculously look more like they've been doused in the face with hard water rather than shot to pieces. Watch the film and you'll see what I mean. On the other side of the coin, though, is a particular shot of the camera panning down to the desk, stopping at a page-a-day calendar with the date Sunday, December 7, 1941. It's almost chilling to watch that shot because we already know what's about to happen on that day.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Woody Jason: "Now wait a minute, fellas, we're all makin' the same salary - six hundred buck a month and five hundred a Jap, right?"
Pilot: "You know, back home most of us have killed rattle snakes whether there's a bounty on 'em or not."
Woody: "I know, but you're protecting your own home. This is not our home. It's not our fight. It's a business. And boy, I hope business is GOOD."

FLY, THE (1986)

2011-12-29T08:13:00.014-05:00

(August 1986, U.S.)

In the history of cinema that has too often meant remakes, remakes, remakes, I don't think I can name more than TEN remakes I would consider superior to the original. Some of these titles would include BEN-HUR (1959), INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1978), THE THING (1982), CAPE FEAR (1991) and, of course, David Cronenberg's horrifying version of THE FLY. I should also point out that I've seen my fair share of terrifying shockers in my time and I'm proud to say I was able to keep my eyes open with dark delight the entire time. THE FLY is one of the few (if not the only) film that is so freakishly and horrifyingly gross that I when I watch it, I find myself uttering things like, "Holy shit!" and "Oh, my God!" Yeah, people, it's just that...uugghh!

But let's all try to remember that while we're being grossed out beyond our imagination, we're being sucking into the process of watching a man change. Change is key here, because unlike the 1958 version that simply put a fly's head on a man's body, we witness the transformation of Seth Brundle (played by Jeff Goldblum, a man who plays a scientist better than anyone I know!) after having unknowingly gone through his own teleport pod with a common housefly inside with him. At first, the change seems glorious as he's developed almost super human strength, a real zest for life, an ongoing need for sex, and an insatiable lust for a lot of extra sugar in his diet. When the change turns bad, it starts out rather subtly with only some blemishes on his face. Throughout the film, though, it gets progressively worse until the man who was once Seth Brundle is now a man who, quite frankly, looks like a giant raisin on two legs! Here, take a look at what I'm talking about...

Besides the horror of change that we witness in THE FLY, there is also something very psychologically thrilling about watching a film where you as the viewer are aware of something that the hero or protaganist is not. We watch that fly get into the the telepod without Seth's knowledge and we're thinking, "Oh no!" to ourselves. We know what has happened to Seth and what will continue to happen. It's almost a sense of sheer exhiliration when we watch Seth finally learn what the Hell happened to him.

The sweet and tender (and rather rapidly moving!) relationship between Seth and Veronica Quaife (played by Geena Davis) greatly contributes to not only Seth's scientific drive and determination, but also his slow decay and what will ultimately be his fate in the end. In fact, "Ronnie" seems so in love with Seth that even at the end when he's no longer human and in fact, has transformed into nothing short of a horrid monster, she's still hesitant about pulling the trigger and putting him out of his misery. Oh, come on! Loyalty is understandable, but as Helene Delambre said in the original film, "It wasn't wrong to kill the thing." I'll tell you what WAS wrong, though, and that was making THE FLY II (1988)!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Veronica Quaife: "Those...weird hairs that were growing out of your back. I took them to a lab. I had them analyzed."
Seth Brundle: "The hairs? The hairs? Oh...yeah, that's a strange thing to do."
Veronica: "Not as strange as the results. The guy at the lab had trouble identifying them. He finally came to the conclusion, that they were definitely not human."
Seth: "Oh...very good."
Veronica: "Not human, Seth. In fact...very INSECT-like hairs."
Seth: "That's silly! That's ridiculous!"

FLY, THE (1958)

2011-12-28T08:26:00.011-05:00

Perhaps the greatest challenge about watching the original version of THE FLY, or any other classic film in which the remake was far superior, is trying to keep the open mind necessary to appreciate the original film's impact on audiences "back in the day". That in mind, it becomes necessary to put David Cronenberg and Jeff Goldblum completely out of your memeory for the purposes of true film appreciation of THE FLY. Give it a try, why don't you.

The decade of the 1950s is probably the greatest "mixed bag" of films you're likely to experience (or remember, depending on your age). You had big, lavish musicals, spectacular epics, film noir, cheap drive-in "B" pictures and science fiction/horror. Strangeley enough, though, many of the monster or alien invasion films that were released seemed Hell-bent on trying to make a scientific point or offer a lesson in scientific progress and technology to the audience watching it. So even before Canadian scientist and family man Andre Delambre (played by David Hedison, the only actor to play Felix Lighter in more than one James Bond film, by the way) experiences the horrible accident that switches his head with that of an ordinary housefly after sendng himself through his own transporter device, he makes several key points on the fascinating visions and wonders of science that audiences were meant to take to heart. Because, even by 1958, the fast pace of television, automobiles, rockets and satellites were a whole lot to absorb in ordinary life. For some, it was exhilerating. For others, there was fear and paranoia.

While Andre's transformation is certainly a dated effect as compared to the 1986's gory remake and especially by today's over-the-top CGI effects, it becomes essential for anyone watching the original version of THE FLY to get inside the audience's mind and experience the shock and horror they must have felt when Andre's wife removes the black hood from his head and exposes the head of the fly that has taken over his body. Look at it with real studying eyes and tell me those two humongous eyes and that twitching nose don't freak you out just a little. Tell me the thought of Andre's wife Helene (played by Patricia Owens) assisting with his own suicide by crushing his big fly head and fly arm with a hydraulic press don't give you the shivers just a little. Tell me that listening to that tiny little fly with the human head of Andre screaming, "Help m-e-e-e! Help m-e-e-e!" didn't bring out the "heebee jeebees" just a little. Tell me you can't imagine Saturday afternoon matinee moviegoers in 1958 experiencing what could only have been considered true horror of its day. And hey, having Vincent Price in the film certainly couldn't have hurt, either.

Now here's a personal memory for you. Those of you who grew up in the eastern tri-state area of the United States may recall a television broadcast in the 1970s and early 1980s called "The 4:30 Movie" on ABC, which more often consisted of rather cheap horror films five days a week. Every once in a while, though, ABC would feature special themes like "Planet of the Apes week" or "Vincent Price week". It was during the latter that I can first recall seeing bits and pieces of THE FLY. I'm sure seeing that fly head for the first time as a kid must have left me thinking, "Whoah, that's freaky, and that's cool!" Take a look...

Favorite line or dialogue:

François Delambre: "You've commited murder just as much as Helene did. You killed a fly with a human head. She killed a human with a fly head."

FLETCH

2011-12-27T08:51:00.009-05:00

(May 1985, U.S.)

Look up the year 1985, and besides John Rambo, you're likely to find Chevy Chase written all over it. In addition to FLETCH, he made NATIONAL LAMPOON'S EUROPEAN VACATION and SPIES LIKE US. In my opinion, I can only justify the latter two by saying that ONE out of three ain't bad. As for Michael Richie's film version of Gregory McDonald's popular novels, no one else but Chevy Chase (at the time) could have played the wisecracking undercover investigative newspaper reporter, Irwin M. Fletcher. He was still young and still just as loony as he'd been those years on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE and CADDYSHACK (1980).

Fletch is not just a lovable wise-ass (you gotta love the guy!), but also a man who finds it necessary to change his identity multiple times in order to crack the big story. The Los Angeles drug trade is Fletch's latest story, and while investigating undercover as a beach wanderer, he's approached by Alan Stanwyk (played by Tim Matheson) who wants Fletch to murder him because he claims he has inoperable bone cancer; this way his family will receive his life insurance. Unaware that Fletch is who he is, Stanwyk thinks he would be the perfect man for the job, as he appears to be a drifter who can thus simply disappear after the shooting without any suspicions being raised.

Following all of this so far?

Fletch agrees to kill Stanwyk but is, of course, suspicious of Stanwyk's motives. Fletch starts to dig, and uncovers a story much greater than his exposé of small-time drug dealers. As he uncovers the lurid truth of bigamy regarding Stanwyk, he also discovers that a crooked police chief (played by Joe Don Baker) is behind the drug trafficking on the beaches. So guess what? Good guy Fletch wins the day, the bad guys go to jail and the "lady in question" falls for Fletch. This could have all played out as great film noir if it weren't so damn funny!

I'll tell you what's NOT so damn funny and that's thinking for even one moment that it's sequel FLETCH LIVES (1988) would work for even a second. That's just tragic. What's even more tragic is that I'm sure a FLETCH remake is out there in the works somewhere. So who will play Fletch today? Well, in my opinion, Vince Vaugn is perhaps the only quick-talking wise-ass I can see coming close. We'll see.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Chief Karlin: "So, what's your name?"
Fletch: "Fletch."
Karlin: "Full name?"
Fletch: "Fletch F. Fletch."
Karlin: "I see. And what do you do for a living, Mr. Fletch?"
Fletch: "I'm a shepherd."
Karlin: "Officers, could you excuse us for a few moments?"
Fletch: "Yeah, why don't you guys go down to the gym and pump each other."

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER

2011-12-23T08:20:00.019-05:00

August 2009, U.S.)

I'm going to do something completely unprecedented with this post and start it with a dedication and proceed to move on through my discussion with additional dedications in conjunction with the story behind this film. Trust me, just read and you'll get it. Ready?

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER is dedicated to all my male readers whom, at one or more times in their lives, had their hearts pulverized with a sledgehammer by a woman he was deluded enough into convincing himself he was in love with...

This independent coming-of-age comedy/drama is presented in a nonlinear narrative, as it jumps from various days within the 500-day span of Tom (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer's (played by Zooey Deschanel) rocky relationship, indicated by an animation that includes the day's number; this summary is a linear version of the events to come in the film. Tom meets Summer, Tom likes Summer, Summer likes Tom, Summer has no interest in a boyfriend or true love, Summer leads Tom on, Tom falls in love with Summer, Summer inevitably takes a huge crap on Tom's face (not literally!) and leaves him in misery.

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER is dedicated to all my male readers who were stupid enough to put the wrong woman on a such a high pedestal she never deserved to be on in the first place...

Tom loves the way Summer smiles, the way Summer laughs, the way Summer looks when she sleeps, the cute little heart shaped birthmark on Summer's neck, the way Summer is probably the only person in the whole world whose favorite Beatle is Ringo Starr. Tom is so happily in love that he finds himself enjoying Patrick Swayse singing "She's Like the Wind" (???). Yes, it would appear that Summer is a true goddess in Tom's totally blinded eyes. But as the timetime of their "unlabeled" relationship jumps ahead by many numbers, Tom eventually finds that he HATES the way Summer smiles, the way Summer laughs, the way Summer looks when she sleeps, etc., etc., etc. Hey, at least some good comes out of this when he rightfully realizes what a HORRIBLE song "She's Like the Wind" is.

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER is dedicated to all my male readers who actually managed to have sex with the woman they thought they loved and managed to pathetically convince themselves that they had achieved the ultimate in human existence...

Tom has sex with Summer. Tom is very HAPPY he had sex with Summer. Tom is so happy he had sex with Summer and filled with the kind of self-confidence that would make even Han Solo proud that as a result, in one of the funniest sequences I've ever seen on film, imagines himself in a choreographed dance number with strangers on the street who share his joy, all to the tune of "You Make My Dreams" by Daryl Hall & John Oates (STILL a great song!).

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER is dedicated to all my male readers who fell for a woman who lead them into believing she WASN'T interested in any kind of serious relationship with any man and then to their surprise (and horror) ended up in a serious relationship (or even marriage!) with ANOTHER MAN while they could do nothing else but sit around and wallow in their own misery...

Summer claims she doesn't believe in true love, but what it turns Summer REALLY meant is that she doesn't believe in true love WITH TOM! Ouch!!! So Tom is left alone to suffer through his woes of being dumped and clings to life with only the help of Jack Daniels and a stack of Hostess Twinkies to get him through his days. Yes, people, men ARE bums, but women have been slowly catching up to us over the years!

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER is dedicated to all my male readers who, through their own hidden strengths and resilience, managed to pick themselves up, wipe away the dusty residue of that bitch who hurt them so badly, find the necessary closure they needed to move on and then eventually meet the woman who would be the TRUE love of their lives, the woman they would take as their beautiful bride, and the woman who would be the mother of their child (or children). THAT'S the woman who deserves the high pedestal!

Tom quits his useless job as a greeting card writer, literally wipes away the chalky white dust of the blackboard that was his former life and courageously starts over. He persues a career in architecture (which is what he studied in school) and while waiting at a job interview happens to meet the future girl of his dreams named Autumn. Yes, that's what I said! Her name is AUTUMN! That's so corny, so stupid, and an absolutely fucking PERFECT conclusion to the poetry of this film's message. What is that message? Well, damned if I know! Is it that love conquers all? Not necessarily. Is it that time heals all wounds? Possibly. Is it to just be a man and get over that bitch who broke your heart and move on? Yes, definitely, that's it!!

Finally, here is a line from (500) DAYS OF SUMMER that I'd like to dedicated to all those woman out there who took that poor naive son-of-a-bitch who was stupid enough to love them unconditionally and tore their poor little hearts apart with a meat grinder..."Roses are red...violets are blue...FUCK YOU, WHORE!"

On that note of good cheer, Happy Holidays, everyone!

Favorite line or dialogue:

OPENING TITLE ON CARD:

AUTHORS NOTE: The following is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

Especially you Jenny Beckman.

Bitch.

"F.I.S.T"

2011-12-22T12:36:00.006-05:00

(August 1978, U.S.)

"F.I.S.T" was, perhaps, the best film Sylvester Stallone could have done immediately following the runaway success of ROCKY (1976). Once again, he's playing a fighter of sorts, but instead of the boxing ring, the arena is the labor unions of the 1930's Great Depression era. This was also a follow-up film where Sly proved he could ACT. Yes, my friends, this is one of those rare and few-and-far-between occassions where I can use the name Sylvester Stallone and the word "act" in the same sentence. The film is loosely based on the Teamsters union and their former President Jimmy Hoffa (look him up).

For the sake of clarity, "F.I.S.T" stands for Federation of Interstate Truckers. The men who drive the trucks and work the loading docks (including Stallone's character of Johnny Kovak) are persistently and unfairly dumped on by their bosses and the trucking company they represent until one day, almost by accident, a small uprising takes place against the bosses and their unjust policies of low pay, no overtime pay and no health insurance. What begins as a small army of men gradually becomes a national empire of labor unions, all of it inevitably headed by Kovak as he slowly rises to the zenith of power faster than you can say Don Corleone. And as expected film cliche would have it, the rise to power and the success it brings is not without the high cost of Mafia involvement and governmental investigation. There's also the love interest for Kovak...because every powerful man has a strong woman who loves him standing by his side, right? And finally, as you might predict, a man like Kovak, who becomes too powerful for his own good and manages to piss off too many people is very likely to find his own life (and his family's) in emminent mortal danger.

That in mind, can you guess how the film ends? You're right.

Let me just conclude that if your idea and memories of Sylvester Stallone falls under the over-the-top crap he gave us throughout the last three decades, then I strongly suggest you watch "F.I.S.T" and experience the man's acting abilities before they became corrupted by everything that is corruptable about multiplex action-adventure movies. I mean, really, how can ANYONE be expected to watch crap like COBRA and OVER THE TOP and still maintain a straight face???

Favorite line or dialogue:

Johnny Kovak: "You know somethin', St. Clair, when I first took this job, I had a feeling that if I did a good enough job, sooner or later somebody'd come walkin' up those stairs, somebody like you, and they'd tell me what you're tellin' me now, and I knew then what I was gonna say and I know now...why don't you the hell outta my office! You're stinkin' up union property!"

FISHER KING, THE

2011-12-20T08:34:00.005-05:00

(September 1991, U.S.)

The hilarious Robin Williams playing a whacked-out homeless man? Oh, sure, what WON'T be funny about that?? Jeff Bridges playing a radio shock-jock-a-la-Howard Stern dislaying the same contempt for humanity that he gave us in THE FABULOUS BAKER BOYS (1989)? Oh, sure, what WON'T be great about that? And directed by Monty Python's Terry Gilliam whose MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL (1975) is still my favorite film comedy after all these years? Oh, sure...ah, you get the idea!

So I already mentioned the shock jock character of Jack Lucas that Bridges plays, which means the man is basically a vicious prick who'll say anything on the radio to rattle his listeners, keep his ratings up and maintain the lavish lifestyle he's built for himself. However, as one moment of bad judegment proves, words hurt more than sticks and stones and inevitably drives one unstable listner to open fire with a shotgun inside a very yuppie drinking establishment because Jack told him on open radio that "those people" must be stopped. As a result, Jack's life is shattered and reduced to having to live with the likes of Merecedes Ruehl (I've NEVER liked her!) in an apartment above a sleazy video store. That radio incident also inevitably shattered the life of Robin Williams character of Parry, whose wife was shot and killed in front of his eyes. Parry is now a deluded homeless man who believes that Jack was sent to him to help find the Holy Grail cup inside another man's Upper West Side castle. Sure, why not, right?

Jack, despite his dislike of other people (which, by the way, I can completely relate to) is compelled, nonetheless, to help Parry rebuild his life by helping him to meet a girl he's (Parry) absolutely smitten over (she's played by very mousy Amanda Plummer). If this happens, perhaps Jack can rebuild his own life. Lives are rebuilt, the Holy Grail cup (or some cheap symbolic version of it) is recovered and the right people seem to fall in love with each other and live happily ever after. That makes perfect sense, of course, when you're dealing with a film that more or less embodies the elements of storytime magic and fantasy, even when it's right here on Earth.

There's one element that I recently noticed that very subtly expresses the timeline here that I'm willing to bet many others haven't noticed before. At the beginning of the film, Jack is up for a part in a sitcom about a radio host. That crashes down after the gunman incident. Years later, he has to painfully watch as someone else has made that show a hit. Only about a year later, Jack's life is rebuilt and the TV show is now defucnt and the former star of the show will now be a guest on Jack's new radio show. Time and circumstance are funny things, indeed. And by the way, if you're looking for a film where you can't hear Burton Lane's "How About You" enough times, then THE FISHER KING is definitely for you! Enjoy!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Jack (to himself): "He talks to invisible people, he sees invisible horses and he's lying naked in the middle of Central Park. I should be surprised? I'm not surprised. I'm outta my fucking mind to even be here!"
Parry: "Who you talking to, Jack?"
Jack: "I'm talking to the LITTLE people!"
Parry: "Are THEY here?"
Jack: "They're saying, "Jack, go to the liquor store and findeth the Jack of Daniels so that ye may be shitfaced, doo-lang, doo-LANG!"
Parry: "They said THAT?"
Jack: "You're out of your fucking mind!"
Parry: "Bingo!"

FISH CALLED WANDA, A

2011-12-16T08:49:00.008-05:00

(July 1988, U.S.)

Imagine that it's 1988. Imagine that you're already a big fan of Monty Python when you see the movie poster for A FISH CALLED WANDA with not only John Cleese on it, but Michael Palin, as well. Imagine your surprise when you see it and discover that it's actually Kevin Kline's character of Otto that has you in stitches. And why? Because the man is so completely irretrievably STUPID!

Rather than discuss too much, the basic plot and formula of this crime-comedy film of four quirky misfits who rob a London jeweler and then proceed to somehow screw each other over, what I really want to focus on in this post is the concept of what honestly makes many of us laugh in this film. To do that, we need to explore the concept of human stupidity and why (like it or not) it makes us laugh. It seems that in today's very-overly-political-correct world, we instantly come under social fire the moment we take any pleasure or amusement in someone else's shortcomings. Calling someone stupid today may get us uncomplimentary looks from those who may be more sensitive to other's feelings than ourselves (or myself!). But, please, let's be perfectly honest here...in A FISH CALLED WANDA, Otto is just plain, flatout STUPID and it's admitedly what makes us laugh! Let's also face the hard fact that in life, there are some very STUPID people out there! Hell, I turn into a fucking magnet for stupid people every time I drive my car on the Long Island Expressway! And despite the fact that it may not be considered very "Emily Post" to laugh at someone with a stutter (in real life, it isn't), Michael Palin's character of Ken is impossible not to laugh at every time he stutters and every time Otto makes fun of that stutter ("It's K-K-K-Ken! C-c-c-coming to k-k-k-kill me!"). Don't get me wrong - Ken has a beautiful speaking voice...when it works!

So there you have it, people. Whether it's acceptably "P.C." or not, stupid people in movies make audiences laugh. We laugh at Kevin Kline in A FISH CALLED WANDA, we laugh at Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels in DUMB AND DUMBER (1994) and in real life we're very likely to laugh at the woman who is stupid enough to be driving her car while talking on her cell phone in one hand and smoking a cigarette in the other. No joke - I saw that on the road just two days ago!

To make my point final, I quote Groucho Marx in DUCK SOUP (1933)..."Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot."

Having just recently watched A FISH CALLED WANDA for this post, I couldn't help but recall a weekend I had with some friends in Westhampton Beach back in July of 1989. The film had only just been released on video and I'd managed to rent a copy for the weekend. In between the beach, the barbecues and the nightclub dancing, we all managed to watch this film (perhaps more than once). Let's just say that during the entire weekend my friend Chris was walking around sniffing his armpit just like Otto and I was walking around screaming, "I'm disappointed!" and "Don't go near him! He's mine!" just like Otto. Yes, it was one of those great Hamptons weekends with friends and girlfriends that stays with you and constantly reminds you of your long-lost youth. So it is to Chris, Beth (not my wife) and Caren that I dedicate this post to. Hope your memories are as strong as mine.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Wanda: "I was dealing with something delicate, Otto. I'm setting up a guy who's incredibly important to us, who's going to tell me where the loot is and if they're going to come and arrest you. And you come loping in like Rambo without a jockstrap and you dangle him out a fifth-floor window. Now, was that smart? Was it shrewd? Was it good tactics? Or was it stupid?"
Otto: "Don't call me stupid."
Wanda: "Oh, right! To call YOU stupid would be an insult to STUPID people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?"
Otto: "Apes don't read philosophy."
Wanda: "Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, okay? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."

FIRST BLOOD

2011-12-14T08:30:00.008-05:00

(October 1982, U.S.)

There was a period of about six years, from 1976 to 1982 when I can honestly say I respected Sylvester Stallone as an actor. ROCKY (1976) and F.I.S.T. (1978) are absolute top-notch performances. NIGHTHAWKS (1981) is one of the best police/crime thrillers I've ever seen. And even though I don't care for the film any longer, ROCKY III (1982) had its place in my heart back in the day. So it's very safe to say that I would consider FIRST BLOOD Stallone's last great film as an actor (thought I did like COPLAND, he was just one of a four ensemble cast). This is our introduction to the character of John Rambo before he (unfortunately) became a major pop-culture slab of meat.

Beyond the action blood and guts that you may be familiar with, FIRST BLOOD offers Stallone the opportunity to act and perform without saying a whole lot. Sounds easy on paper, I'm sure, but it represents a challenge because his inner silence not only expresses the man he is as he tries to evade capture by the local morons of the police force, but also the man he was as a soldier of the United States Army Special Forces in Vietnam. When we first meet John Rambo, we're given every indication that he's an unstable psychopath, and perhaps that's not altogether untrue. But because there are two sides to this story, the mistreatment and abuse he undergoes after his (unjust) arrest is very clear. These are local law enforcement morons who push Rambo to his limit simply because they don't want his type, a drifter, in their small, quiet and boring town. The fact is, though, if you look very carefully at the action in the film, you'll find that Rambo never actuall KILLS anybody with his own bare hands. The abusive cop who falls to his death from a helicopter is only because Rambo threw a rock at it in his own defense. All other police officers in the hunt are maimed and injured only by Rambo's hands.

Brian Dennehy's performance as Sheriff Will Teasle is effective because you know he's an unfair and pushy prick while still giving the viewer a sense of sympathy for his determination to not only protect his little town from Rambo's rage, but to protect his own life, as well. Stallone, as mentioned already, is quiet through most of the film, but it does all build up to a rather gripping speech that expresses his pain and anguish of not only his Vietnam past, but also his struggle to survive in the world he came back to after the war.

Now I must tell you that the story of John Rambo, for me, begins and ends with FIRST BLOOD. Back in 1985, I admitedly got swept up by "Rambo-mania" just like the rest of the world. I went to see RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD-PART II on screen twice. I had the movie poster on my college dorm wall, and I couldn't wait to own a copy of the film when it became available on VHS. But as I got older and my film tastes became a little more sophisticated, I discovered that the flaws of the second film greatly outweighed any of the American "gung-ho" excitement that had me going all those years in the late 1980s. Bottom line is that RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD-PART II is a film with bad dialogue and bad acting, and that's enough of a reason to put me off of any film, no matter how popular it is. RAMBO III (1988); I can barely even remember what that story was about. That's how much of an impression it left on me, even way back then. RAMBO (2008) I didn't even bother to see (still haven't) though I always thought that the story should have centered around the events of September 11, 2001 and Rambo's response to it. Shit, that would have been just like watching John Wayne on the big screen after the United States entered World War II.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Colonel Trautman: "You want a war you can't win?"
Sheriff Teasle: "Are you telling me that two hundred of our men against your boy is a no-win situation for us?"
Trautman: "You send that many, don't forget one thing."
Teasle: "What?"
Trautman: "A good supply of body bags!"

FIRM, THE

2011-12-12T08:37:00.007-05:00

(June 1993, U.S.)

John Grisham's THE FIRM was one of those books that you just simply HAD to read twenty years ago because everyone on this planet seemed to be reading it and to not read it would have been deemed practically irresponsible...kind of like having to read THE DA VINCI CODE many years later. When I read THE FIRM, I kept trying to picture who would be the perfect actor to play the lead character Mitch McDeere and I kept coming up with Charlie Sheen because his performance in WALL STREET (1987) was still very fresh in my mind. Well, lo and behold, we get Tom Cruise instead and I can't say I was disappointed because his presence and performance in most of his films greatly indulges that guilty pleasure I have to watch him on screen. It's shameful, but unavoidable.

So, for those you have been deep under a rock back in the very early 1990s, THE FIRM is legal thriller that promises young attorney Mitch McDeere (Cruise) the temptations of money, bonuses, a low interest mortgage, a leased Mercedes and his student loan paid in full (do law firms still actually DO THIS in today's unstable economy??) when he joins the small tax law firm of Bendini, Lambert & Locke in Memphis, Tennessee. These wonderful temptations cause Mitch's temporary blindness to the fact the firm is actually a front for the Chicago mafia. The FBI contact Mitch, asking him for information and informing him not only of the firm's dark secret but the fact that every associate that has ever tried to leave the firm has ended up murdered. So his life as he knows it is forever changed. He has a choice: work with the FBI and risk being discovered by the firm, or stay with the firm knowing that at sometime he'll get involved with laundering mob money and in the end go to jail when the FBI inevitably cracks the firm. Either way, Mitch will lose his life as he knows it. Are you following all this so far?

So, as cliche might have it, our hero devises a plan that will not only break the firm, but save his own ass and career, as well. Now here's the real interesting part, people. Without giving too much away, Sidney Pollack's film version of THE FIRM actually constructs a more interesting and plausible resolution than the book did. This is very rare in films, indeed. But if you were of the many millions who read the book, then you'll also remember what a real anti-climactic and rather boring letdown the ending was. The film was pretty much obligated to improve that situation, and in my opinion, did, and very well, too.

By the way, THE FIRM is one of those Tom Cruise films where you get to see him running at top speed while making that ridiculous and rather funny face that has almost become a physical signature with him. You see what I mean...guilty pleasure!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Mitch McDeere: "Let me get this straight: you want me to steal files from the firm, turn them over to the FBI, send my colleagues to jail."
Wayne Tarrance: "They roped you into this."
Mitch: "Breach attorney-client privilege, thus getting myself disbarred for life, then testify in open court against the Mafia."
Wayne: "Well, unfortunately, Mitch..."
Mitch: "Let me ask you something: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND!?"

FINDING NEMO

2011-12-09T08:34:00.007-05:00

(May 2003, U.S.)

Choosing to write about and discuss any Walt Disney family film can prove to be the most challenging when writing these blogs because it puts me in the position of having to interpret the film, my feelings and reactions to it from the point of view of the adult. You see, as a kid I wasn't raised on very much Disney in the movie theater. Back in the 1970's, there would often be these Disney re-release double features, but my parents barely took me to see them. I actually ended up seeing more G-rated films that took place in the great wilderness, but that's another story entirely.

So in the Summer of 2003, I was dragged (practically kicking and screaming) by my wife to see FINDING NEMO. My positive reaction to it was only minimal at the time. But then two things happened; the first is that I decided to give the film another look when it screened on the Starz cable channel a year later. The comic fun of the underwater story, particularly the ongoing vocal cynicism by Marlin the clownfish (voiced by funnyman Albert Brooks) suddenly took on a whole new light for me. The second is that after I became a father, my little boy discovered the movie and the DVD was constantly playing on our TV. Honestly, when you're constantly exposed to something like that over and over again, you're either going to really love it or really hate it. Fortunately for this blog and fans of the movie, I chose to love it. In fact, if you play FINDING NEMO on a really large flat screen TV, I defy your imagination to not convince yourself that you have a real living aquarium in your living room.

It seems that all our undersea characters (and the celebrity voices behind them) are funny in this film. From Albert Brooks to Ellen Degeneres to Willem DaFoe, the dialogue is quick, snappy and filled with more than its share of comic points that will entertain grownups, as well. Only a grownup who is very familiar with JAWS (1975) and the behind-the-scenes story of the mechanical shark being named "Bruce" could smile when the huge animated Australian great white shark introduces himself to the little fish as Bruce. And even though over the course of the last decade I feel that computer-generated animated movies have become absolute overkill, FINDING NEMO is one of those rare treats where one may want to sit in the front row of the movie theater (or your living room) and let the vivid images wash out to the edges of one's field of vision. Your eyes, ears and senses have the opportunity to take a wonderful journey to the depths of the great blue ocean and even get to see a little of what Sydney Harbour in Australia looks like.

And so, as much as I've always wanted to deny the fact that becoming a father has forever "changed" me, I suppose I can't deny it any longer when I find myself enjoying films like FINDING NEMO, SHREK, TOY STORY and who know what else. In other words, I guess I'm fucked!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Dory: "Hey there, Mr. Grumpy Gills. When life gets you down do you wanna know what you've gotta do?"
Marlin: "No, I don't wanna know."
Dory (singing): "Just keep swimming. Just keep swimming. Just keep swimming, swimming, swimming. What do we do? We swim, swim."
Marlin: "Dory, no singing."
Dory (still singing): "Ha, ha, ha, ha, ho. I love to swim. When you want to swim you want to swim."
Marlin: "Now I'm stuck with that song. Now it's in my head!"
Dory: "Sorry."

FIELD OF DREAMS

2011-12-07T12:23:00.008-05:00

(April 1989, U.S.)

By our standards of popular culture (whatever they happen to be these days), FIELD OF DREAMS is often considered the best baseball film ever made. While I don't exactly disagree, I consider this a highly ironic honor considering the fact that there's no actual professional baseball game played in the film. That's right - no game, no underdog team of misfits, no spectacular home run and safe-at-home victory that wins the big game. In FIELD OF DREAMS, we explore the meaning and spirit of baseball and how it's come to not only represent our American history, but also as a symbol of our youthful dreams and fantasies of greatness.

(Wow! That was deep!)

Take a moment, though, and try to imagine what it must have been like to pitch the idea for the big screen to the vast number of studios that turned the project down (some more than once), despite being based on an original novel ("Shoeless Joe" by W. P. Kinsella). Picture director and writer Phil Alden Robinson standing in front of some Hollywood big shot's desk trying to sell the idea of an Iowa farmer who willingly plows through his corn crop and his livelyhood for no other reason than having heard a mysterious voice telling him, "If you build it, he will come." But this, my friends, is where the open-mindedness of true film magic comes into play and offers the audience the opportunity to not only open their closed minds for a moment, but to also sit back and watch what happens as a result. That result is a film of pure fantasy; fantasy without dragons, magic spells or space battles. It's the magic of baseball and how much it means to all of us.

Kevin Constner, whom despite having made other great films like DANCES WITH WOLVES (1990) and JFK (1991), is an actor that I simply cannot help but think of as "Mr. Baseball" when it comes to his long career. In any role he's played regarding the sport, one comes away feeling the same passion he often feels for the game. As it turns, he is (or WAS in his younger days) quite a ball player. But Costner as Ray Kinsella is only the beginning here. The roles played by Ray Liotta as "Shoeless Joe" Jackson, James Earl Jones as Terence Mann and especially the great Burt Lancaster (in his last film role) as Archie "Moonlight" Graham are nothing short of awe-inspiring and magical. Watching their faces and hearing their voices can easily bring out emotions from the viewer of what it must be like to seek a dream so badly and only managing to come within just inches of achieving it. It hurts so badly to not have one's dream realized, but the glimpses of hope and magic (there's that damn word again!) that FIELD OF DREAMS provides is that if we strongly believe in something, that maybe even just a taste of that dream for a few moments will sustain us through the rest of our lives (or in the film's case, the afterlife).

Watching FIELD OF DREAMS not only brings the traditional cliche of good feelings out of you, but it also has the potential to provoke your own memories of baseball in your life, whatever they may be. For myself, I was much like Ray Kinsella in that I was determined to be an opposite fan of whatever my father liked. He liked the Mets, so I loved the Yankees (and still do!). By the time I'd discovered Reggie Jackson in 1977 as my true baseball hero, there was no going back for me as to where my loyalties in baseball would forever remain. I'm been a loyal Yankee fan since I was a boy, even through their worst periods. The day I took my little boy to his first Yankee game at the newly-built Yankee stadium on a beautiful sunny day in the Summer of 2010 and cheered the great Derek Jeter with him was truly a day of joy as a father who was passing along the American spirit of baseball to his son. I wish that sort of joy for all you fathers and your sons.

So, what's your personal baseball story?

Favorite line or dialogue:

Terence Mann: "Ray, people will come, Ray. They'll come to Iowa for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up your driveway not knowing for sure why they're doing it. They'll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past. Of course, we won't mind if you look around, you'll say. It's only twenty dollars per person. They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it: for it is money they have and peace they lack. And they'll walk out to the bleachers; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come, Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh...people will come, Ray. People will most definitely come."

FEW GOOD MEN, A

2011-12-06T08:38:00.005-05:00

(December 1992, U.S.)

You may recall sometime in my blog past when I told you that I had this rather pathetic weakness for MOST of Tom Cruise's films (who could possibly be expected to sit through crap like COCKTAIL and FAR AND AWAY??). Well, if I have to weigh that guilty pleasure against a film where dialogue is truly key, then Rob Reiner's A FEW GOOD MEN comes in as one of the top few where I really get unavoidably sucked into just about everything that comes out of Cruise's mouth. Does he deserve all the credit for that or should the proper just dues go to the screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin, who also wrote the original play.

Take a moment to look back at the 1980s and I'd be willing to bet there wasn't a time you couldn't remember hearing the line, "E.T. phone home." Well, now look back at the 1990s and I'll bet there wasn't a time you weren't hearing Jack Nicholson's voice in your head saying, "You can't handle the truth!". Yes, famous movie dialogue has a funny way of sticking to your conscience and our pop culture, in general.

This courtroom drama steps out of the traditional crime and punishment tale and goes right for the throat, revolving around the trial of two rather fanatical U.S. Marines (Lance Corporal Harold Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey) charged with the murder of fellow Marine William Santiago and the tribulations of their lawyer Danny Kaffee (played by Cruise) as he prepares a case to defend his clients with the help of Naval investigator and lawyer Lieutenant Commander Joanne Galloway (played by Demi Moore). And of course, there's the great Jack Nicholson playing Col. Nathan R. Jessep. Nicholson's role in this film is minimal, but the dialogue and performance he gives us is more than enough to sustain our appetites for the style of acting we've come to expect from him over the years. Danny Kaffee's character, while intruiging, energetic and compelling, is highly predictable and quite cliche in that he's the type of protaganist who seemingly can't do the job right or simply doesn't care enough to even try. Of course, as he probes further into the facts of the case (how many times do we get to hear the words "Code Red" in this film?) and those around him push him further, he'll come to not only care about his sacred profession as a lawyer, but will also (hopefully) win the big case and all will be well with the world. Victory, though, will only come by chance of circumstance in that he'll have to provoke Col. Jessup to the point of his own (proud) admission that it was HE who ordered the "Code Red" which lead to the involuntary manslaugher of William Santiago. Oops, did I just give it all away?

Geez, I've said a lot of character names in this post! But then again, watch A FEW GOOD MEN and you'll hear that many of the key character names are repeated again, and again, and again. That's the truth! Can you handle it?

Favorite line or dialogue:

Col. Nathan Jessup: "You have to ask me nicely! You see Danny, I can deal with the bullets, and the bombs, and the blood. I don't want money, and I don't want medals. What I do want is for you to stand there in that faggoty white uniform and with your Harvard mouth extend me some fucking courtesy! You gotta ask me nicely!"

Man, that kind of talk is so JACK!

FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF

2011-12-01T08:27:00.006-05:00

(June 1986, U.S.)

Over the last twenty-five years, I've discovered, little by little, very small reasons to NOT enjoy FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF as much as I did when I was a younger man in the late 1980s. For one thing, having to spend all that time staring at the shit-eating grin on Matthew Broderick's face can get a bit irritating. Second, that infamous city parade sequence where Ferris is lip-sincing the Beatles singing "Shake It Up" while the entire city takes part in a choreographed dance number may have seemed pretty awesome back in 1986, but now I find it rather stupid. Fear not, though, my fellow lovers of Ferris Bueller. There's still plently we can talk about that I still love to watch.

Even back in its day, I knew that FERRIS BUELLER would not have been nearly as funny had Ferris not been talking to the camera and to us. Like something right out of ANNIE HALL (1977), we're taking part in our hero's adventures and misfortunes and laughing right along with it. And if you happened to be of the high school or college age when it was released, then you were apt to further appreciate the antics of a young man who's sole termination is too just take it easy on a very beautiful day that just happens to be a school day. But more than Ferris, for me it's always been his quirky best friend Cameron Frye (played by Alan Ruck) and his very resentful and bitchy sister Jeanie (played by pre-nose job Jennifer Grey) that have always carried the film for me. Oh, and of course there's the fact that I had a serious crush on Mia Sara when I saw her in this film. Very babe-a-licious!

Like previous John Hughes' films, FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF is very reminiscent of the 1980's pop culture and very focussed on what makes the city and suburbs of Chicago very personal to the director. You actually believe that the downtown area is a fun place to roam and certainly the residnet backyards are some of the most inviting I've ever seen. Yes, Hughes clearly loves Chicago the way Woody Allen has always loved New York City. The man also clearly has a good idea of how completely lame some high school teachers can be in their approach to relating to their students. If I'd had a teacher that was anything even close to that of Ben Stein (economics) or Del Close (English), I think I would have shot us both! As Ferris himself put it, high school can only be described as "childish and stupid". Amen to that, Ferris!

One last piece of trivia I'll add to all this - I was watching this film about a year ago and permitted my five year-old son to stay in the living room while it was on. I can't claim that he understood everything that was happening in the movie, but he was cracking up. Since then, he affectionately refers to FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF as the movie where "the boy doesn't go to school". Congratulations, Sam, you nailed it perfectly! I love you!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Ferris Bueller (to the camera with key points on screen): "The key to faking out the parents is the clammy hands. It's a good non-specific symptom; I'm a big believer in it. A lot of people will tell you that a good phony fever is a dead lock, but, you get a nervous mother, you could wind up in a doctor's office. That's worse than school. You fake a stomach cramp, and when you're bent over, moaning and wailing, you lick your palms. It's a little childish and stupid, but then, so is high school."

FATAL ATTRACTION

2011-11-29T08:27:00.008-05:00

(September 1987, U.S.)

I'm going to start off this post by telling you all three brief stories and how they may (or may not) be directly linked to the adult themes of Adrian Lyne's 1987 hit, FATAL ATTRACTION. I will also add that all of this took place BEFORE I met the woman who would become my wife (got that, honey?).

In the Summer of 1990, I was in love with a girl who did not return the same feelings for me (I've described her before in my post for DEAD POETS SOCIETY). Somewhere during the course of those months, we had a discussion concerning the fact that we'd never slept together. We weren't dating (nor did it look like we would be), but we were, nonetheless, curious about being with each other. So we actually had a talk about being together one time and then resuming our relationship as just friends. In short, we were two (seemingly) mature adults laying out the rules of engagement and the acceptance of those rules. I accepted. The results of our first time together sexually are an entirely different story, but when it was over I suddenly found myself not liking the rules I'd agreed to so much. I didn't go boiling any rabbits, but I found myself wanting a lot more of what I'd agreed to have only once. By this account, it may be very easy for me to sympathize with Glenn Close's character Alex Forrest and the feelings she can't let go of, despite the "rules" she's agreed to.

For a couple of years during college following that summer, I had a girlfriend (I've described her before in my post for BASIC INSTINCT) who was very warm, very giving, very passionate and also known to succomb to very unwarranted fits of jealous rage. She never boiled any rabbits, but she did slash one of the tires on my car once for no apparant good reason. By this account, it may be very easy for me to CONDEMN Alex Forrest and how she takes her obssessions and insecurities too far.

Finally, during the Summer of 1997, I met and picked up a girl at a club in the Hamptons. We met the next day and proceeded to...okay, can't talk about THAT because my wife is likely reading this now. The point, though, is that somewhere along the course of things getting very physical, the brain in my head kicked in for a moment and told me that I did not want this girl to become any permanent part of my life. Thus, I actually took the time to tell her (BEFORE sleeping with her) that I was NOT looking for a girlfriend. She understood and accepted that fact. So again, we were two mature adults laying out the rules of engagement and acceptance of those rules (neither of us boiled any rabbits!). By this account, it may be very easy for me to sympathize with Michael Douglas' character, Dan Gallagher and the rules and conditions he lays out when getting temporarily involved with Alex.

By the way, in case you haven't actually seen FATAL ATTRACTION and haven't quite figured it out yet, a rabbit DOES get boiled in this film. In fact, ass a result, the term "bunny boiler" was passed into popular culture as a term for a very jealous and potentially violent mistress.

So as you watch the thrilling (and sometimes horrific) events of this film unfold and threaten to destroy the life of Dan Gallagher and his family, the one argument you may find yourself having (with yourself) is who is right and who is wrong. It can be argued that Dan is very WRONG in allowing himself to be tempted to stray from his seemingly perfect marriage to his wife Beth (played by Anne Archer and also the name of MY wife) simply because the opportunity is there for the taking. It can be argued that Dan is clearly in the RIGHT for not leading Alex on in the first place and making the rules of his life and availability very clear from the get-go. It can be argued that Alex is in the RIGHT for not allowing herself to be treated like some slut that Dan can just bang a few times and then discard when he's had his fun. It can ultimately be argued that Alex is very, very WRONG (and very, very disturbed) for taking things so far as to kidnap Dan's little girl and try to kill him and his wife. These were arguments I actually had in 1987 with the girl I'd seen the film with right after it was over. Right-wrong, right-wrong...these are the issues that FATAL ATTRACTION can raise, and DID raise back in the day. One thing's for sure and that is the premise of an obssessive woman trying to destroy a man's life and family scared the living shit of all men who saw the film back in it's day, and probably still does! By the final climax, though, despite whomever is right or wrong, there is one inescapable conclusion that is likely to run through your head and that is, "This crazy bitch has to die!"

All of this has been my collection of personal opions, of course. But for the record, after its original release, FATAL ATTRACTION engendered much discussion of the potential consequences of infidelity on the part of the male. Feminists, meanwhile, did not appreciate the depiction of Alex as a strong career woman who is at the same time profoundly psychotic (yeah, but she IS psychotic, right?). This film may have also saved many marriages because men were just too scared shitless to cheat on their wives. You see, guys, this is what HOOKERS are for!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Dan Gallagher: "Look, Alex, I like you, and if I wasn't with somebody else then maybe I'd be with you. But I am."
Alex Forrest: "Please don't justify yourself. It's pathetic. If you told me to fuck off, I'd have more respect for you."
Dan: "All right then, fuck off."

FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH

2011-11-23T12:32:00.009-05:00

(August 1982, U.S.)

Somewhere during the latter part of my high school education in the early 1980s, I discovered my love for the music of Led-Zeppelin. This was AFTER I saw FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH. I point this out because it was due to watching this film that I actually thought that "Kashmir" was on the album "Led-Zeppelin IV" because the character of Mike Damone tells Mark Ratner that "When it comes down to making out, whenever possible, put on side one of Led Zeppelin IV." and the scene that immediately follow features "Kashmir" playing in the car on Mark's first date with Stacy Hamilton. I eventually learned otherwise.

So you see, it's just like I've pointed out before, certain films are what you make of them in terms of your own personal memories and feelings about them. For myself, FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH was not about seeing it in the movie theater at the time of its original release, but rather one year later when I began my sophmore year at high school and the film was playing on every pay-cable channel for repeated viewing. Try to imagine an entire school full of pubescent young males constantly quoting the lines of Jeff Spicoli (played by a young and talented Sean Penn) like "Hey bud, let's party!", "People on 'ludes should not drive" and "That was my skull! I'm so wasted!" Ah yes, it was a wonderful time for silly film quotations and silly high school teenage sex comedies, in general! A film like FAST TIMES is the reason I don't go for AMERICAN PIE movies or something like THE HANGOVER. Been there, done that, and it was much better in my time!

Now what I've found quite interesting in the nearly thrity years since this film came out is how much I've learned about it that I didn't know back then. For instance, I had no idea who Cameron Crowe was and that he'd actually gone undercover as a high school student in order to write his original book that FAST TIMES is based on. I had no idea until recently that the pretty blonde girl driving the car and laughing at Brad Hamilton's fast food pirate hat was actually Nancy Wilson of Heart who would later become Crowe's wife (and then EX-wife). It even took me a few years to realize that the entire Jeff Spicoli surfing sequence was actually just a dream (Hey, I thought he was just that good!).

Recalling FAST TIMES, as well as others like it such as PORKY'S (1982) and SPRING BREAK (1983) recalls a time when high school and college were a source of absolute antics and fun times with the right amount of tits and ass to entertain (and perhaps educate) young horny men who had yet to lose their virginity. This was before John Hughes would take over and show us the more serious and dramatic side of our high school experiences. Still, even now it's always nice to return to the wild sexual element of the young "coming-of-age" side of adolescence and remember a time when a young, horny man like myself was just waiting in anticipation for the day he would one day have sex for the first time and constantly pausing the videotape at the exact moment when Phoebe Cates and Jennifer Jason Leigh took off their tops and treated me to full frontal nudity (oh right, like all you guys reading this post never did THAT at least once when you were younger!). In fact, did you know that a constant problem with VHS rental copies of FAST TIMES in the 1980s was that there was very often a visual glitch on the tape ribbon at the exact moment when Cates takes off her red bikini top because young, horny men were constantly pausing the videotape and...well, you can guess!

You know, I wonder if Stacy and Rat ever eventually "went all the way"?

Favorite line or dialogue:

Stu Nahan: "Hello everybody! I'm Stu Nahan, and I'd like you to meet this young man. His name, Jeff Spicoli. And Jeff, congratulations to you. Things looked kind of rough out there today."
Jeff Spicoli: "Well, I'll tell you Stu, I did battle some humongous waves! But you know, just like I told the guy on ABC, "Danger is my business!"
Stu: "You know, a lot of people expected maybe Mark "Cutback" Davis or Bob "Jungle Death" Gerrard would take the honors this year."
Jeff: "Those guys are fags!"
Stu: "That's fantastic! Let me ask you a question. When you get out there, do you ever fear for your life?"
Jeff: "Well Stu I'll tell you, surfing's not a sport, it's a way of life, you know, a hobby. It's a way of looking at that wave and saying, "Hey bud, let's party!" Where'd you get this jacket?"
Stu: "I got this from the network. Let me ask you a question. What's next for Jeff Spicoli?"
Jeff: "Heading over to the Australian and Hawaiian internationals, and then me and Mick are going to wing on over to London and jam with the Stones! And you guys are invited too!"

FARGO

2011-11-22T08:41:00.011-05:00

(March 1996, U.S.)

The Coen Brothers' dark comedy-crime film FARGO is considered one of the best films of their career. That, of course, is up to the viewer to decide. Personally, I think they hit the mark beautifully with their debut film BLOOD SIMPLE (1984). FARGO is one of those experiences where you simply can't help but laugh at extremely quirky characters like sleazy car salesman Jerry Lundegaard (played by William H. Macy), pregnant police chief Marge Gunderson (played by Frances McDormand) or "funny lookin" small time criminal Carl Showalter (played by Steve Buscemi). Yet, at the same time, you can't help but be repelled by the bloody violence and shocking murders that takes place on the screen and those that are motivated by financial greed.

From the moment we meet Jerry, we already know that there's something about him we don't like. As it turns out, he's in deep financial trouble and will stoop to the act of hiring a couple of sleazeball criminals to kidnap his wife in order to get the ransom money from his wealthy father in-law which he'll split with the kidnappers. But of course, as cliche (and perhaps even true story accounts), things go horribly wrong and blood begins to spill. The murders in question are investigated by our above-mentioned pregnant local police chief Marge. She quickly deduces the chain of events and follows the leads that arise, interviewing two quirky (and considerably UGLY!) prostitutes who serviced the criminals and tracing the license plates on the criminals' vehicle to Jerry's auto dealership. Not good for Jerry! The climax is not only intruiging because you're actually rather impressed by what this hero pregnant cop is capable of, but you also can't believe you're watching the wood chipper scene, despite knowing the violence that criminal Gaear Grimsrud (Carl's silent piece-of-shit partner and played chillingly by Peter Stormare) is evidently capable of. The real ending that you may not expect is the final scene of Marge in bed with her loving husband as they sweetly tell each other "I love you." That is so cliche, so old fashioned, perhaps even borderline stupid in the "Hollywood happy ending" sense, and yet somehow, it seems to make sense at the end of the rather insane day that Marge has had. Go figure.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Marge Gunderson: "Okay. I wantcha to tell me what these fellas looked like."
Hooker: "Well, the little guy, he was kinda funny lookin'."
Marge: "In what way?"
Hooker: "I don't know. Just funny lookin'."
Marge: "Can ya be any more specific?"
Hooker: "I couldn't really say. He wasn't circumcised."
Marge: "Was he funny lookin' apart from that?"
Hooker: "Yah."
Marge: "So you were havin' sex with the little fella, then?"
Hooker: "Uh-huh."
Marge: "Is there anything else you can tell me about him?"
Hooker: "No. Like I say, he was funny lookin'. More that most peopel even."

FANTASIA 2000

2011-11-19T14:34:00.005-05:00

(December 1999, U.S.)

Here's something to consider for a moment - did MTV REALLY create the music video thirty years ago? I would challange that idea by claiming that it was actually Walt Disney himself who first introduced the world to the idea of the music video in his original release of FANTASIA in 1940. Think about it. For the first time, moviegoers were treated to the idea of animated images and effects on screen accompanied by popular classical music. Forty-one years later, MTV would simply use the same concept with popular rock music accompanied with films of the bands themeselves or any other cinematic images. Sixty years after the first FANTASIA, the concept of a brand new film FANTASIA 2000 with new musical pieces and new animated segments seemed just perfect for the new millenium to come. And it even included the very poplular Mickey Mouse-starred "Scorcerer's Apprentice" segment from the original film; the only segment from the original film that I ever really appreciated anyway. For the new century, though, the film's segments are as followed:

- "Symphony No. 5" by Ludwig van Beethoven with abstract patterns and shapes resembling butterflies and bats exploring a world of light and darkness which are ultimately conquered by light.

- "Pines of Rome" by Ottorino Respighi accompanied by a family of humpback whales that are able to fly via some sort of supernova. The calf is separated from his parents when he becomes trapped in an iceberg, but finds his way out with his mother's help. The final section, the Via Appia, gives the impression of the larger pod of adults in migration.

- "Rhapsody in Blue" by George Gershwin (my wife's favorite piece of classical music. An episode of New York City during the Great Depression of the 1930s in the style of Al Hirschfeld's well-known cartoons of the time, depicting a day in the lives of several people within the bustling metropolis.

- "Piano Concerto No. 2" by Dmitri Shostakovich and based on "The Steadfast Tin Soldier" by Hans Christian Andersen. The concerto was written as a gift by Shostakovich to his musically gifted young son, and the percussive rhythms also suit a story about a soldier. In contrast to the original story, the ending is a happy one (how Hollywood is THAT?).

- "The Carnival of the Animals" by Camille Saint-Saëns with a flock of flamingos try to force a slapstick member who enjoys playing with a yo-yo to engage in their dull routines.

- The return of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" by Paul Dukas featuring Mickey Mouse as the apprentice of sorcerer Yen Sid who attempts some of his master's magic tricks before knowing how to control them. The result is a lot of broken broom sticks and a lot of water.

- "Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar and based on the story of Noah's Ark from the Book of Genesis starring Donald Duck as the first mate to Noah and Daisy Duck as Donald's assistant and love interest. Donald leads the animals to the Ark and in the process he misses, loses and reunites with Daisy.

- "Firebird Suite" by Igor Stravinsky. The story is of the spring sprite and her companion, the elk, who accidentally awakes the evil Firebird, a fiery spirit of destruction in a nearby volcano. The Firebird proceeds in destroying the forest, and seemingly the sprite. The Sprite survives, and the Elk encourages her to restore the forest to its former state.

If you've been reading my blogs long enough, then you know that I ususally don't take the time to go into this much detail when it comes to plot and story. The exception here, however, is that it seems almost unavoidable when trying to get the reader to appreciate what can ultimately be compared to...well, a music video on film. Unlike the original FANTASIA, however, which I found too childish for my tastes, this one holds my attention a lot more. Perhaps I just like the music better. Perhaps I appreciate how far we've come in the art of animation since 1940. Who knows and who cares. It's a joyful, colorful experience of music and images. It's only the only film that I've ever seen on the giant IMAX screen.

Favorite animated segment (because dialogue ain't exactly happening in this film!):

"Pines of Rome" by Ottorino Respighi. Not only my favorite piece of music in the film, but also the best featured animation. Watching the family of humback whales is wonderfully visually engrossing, to say the least.

FAME

2011-11-17T22:07:00.012-05:00

(May 1980, U.S.)

Every once in a while when I'm writing my blog posts, I have to occassionally remind myself to look back on a particular film of the past when it was considered a work of originality and true performance back in "the day" or in the past years of my childhood. In simpler words, watching Alan Parker's original version of FAME again during a century that has so far seen way too many movies and television shows where high school kids and so-called "tweenies" are constantly singing and dancing and dreaming of being the next bullshit version of Lady Gaga (I hate, hate, hate that pig!) or whatever else. FAME came out in 1980, and up until then, teenage musicals had been more or less restricted to GREASE (1978) and "beach blanket" movies of the 1960s. I myself haven't been in high school since 1985, but I can surely guarantee you that the four year experience is NO damn musical!

Truth be told, I cannot consider FAME your traditional musical. Yes, there's singing and dancing and yes, the film's music soundtrack was as big as the ones for SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER and GREASE preceeding it. But these are not students breaking out into song and dance in the traditional sense. When they sing, dance and play instruments, it's part of their education and their dreams of fame and stardom. But unlike the kids you may be painfully subjected to on the Disney Channel, these kids are not always happy and many of them have R-rated dark and painful secrets and experiences that they need to bring out of themselves. These inner emotions are what will ultimately bring out the talent and passion they keep inside, be it music, drama or dancing. These are kids you actually WANT to listen to and come to care about during their four year committment to their studies at the New York High School of Performing Arts. Some will succeed and many, many will fail, even the best and the brightest of them. We'll never know which ones, but we're going to watch them do the hard work and and painfully suffer along the way.

Watching the opening segment of AUDITIONS is what I've frankly found the most intruiging of the film. Your eyes, ears and senses are nearly overwhelmed by all the talent and capabilities of these young hopefuls and it's all happening at the same time. You also feel for the impatience and punchiness of the teachers as they have to spend days auditioning kids who are all there for the same dream, whether they have any talent or not (some simply do NOT!). I would also call particular attention the film's performances of Barry Miller playing Ralph Garci and Irene Cara playing CoCo. Miller had already previously impressed me in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER (1977) and anyone who remembers FLASHDANCE (1983) knows what Cara did for it. It's a shame, though, that she never really made it in film, because I think she's pretty damn good in FAME. I also can't resist the sequence of the traditional midnight performance of THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW at the now defunked 8th Street Playhouse in New York City. I got to experience that once...just once.

I didn't see the 2009 remake of FAME (big fucking surprise, right?), but I can almost understand Hollywood's need (and greed!) to remake it when you consider all of the previously-mentioned crap in the movies and television that has, frankly, sickened me ever since AMERICAN IDOL went on the air. The remake was inevitable for sure and it completely tanked at the box office and with audiences. Good!!!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Montgomery MacNeil: "Look, all anyone ever promised you was seven classes a day and a hot lunch. The rest is up to you, Ralph. I mean, back in the Middle Ages, actors, they didn't even wanna bury us."
Ralph Garci: "Well, they do now."
Montgomery: "Not if you're good."
Ralph: "How do you know? How do you know if you're good?"
Montgomery: "Maybe you never know. You just hang in, I guess."

FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN, THE

2011-11-15T08:28:00.011-05:00

(January 1985, U.S.)

I have to say that it's a shame, like Paul Newman and Robert Redford, that Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn only made two films together (the other one was TAPS) because I always thought they had quite a good chemistry with each other. Looking back at the early 1980s, I'd have guessed that it would've been Hutton who might have turned out to be the bigger cinematic star. Not so, huh?

Like LESS THAN ZERO (1987), this film centers on two young boys who are both from wealthy, upscale California families and who have, nonethless, both turned to a lifestyle of crime. Christopher Boyce (played by Hutton) and Daulton Lee (played by Penn) were both real life men who sold U.S. security secrets to the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Dalton, I might add, is also a drug dealter. I might also add, and it's difficult to tell if he was really like this in real life or if Penn is simply playing him this way, that Daulton was a major incompetent fuck up! So much so, that you can't help but wonder why someone as intelligent as Chris would put his trust and confidence is someone like Daulton in the first place. I suppose boyhood friendship can go a long way in these matters. As a young civil defense contractor, Chris works inside a secure communication facility through which flows much information on some of the most classified U.S. operations in the world. Chris has becomed disillusioned with the U.S. government through his new position, especially after reading a misrouted communiqué dealing with the CIA's plan to depose the Prime Minister of Australia. Frustrated by this apparent duplicity, Chris decides to repay his own government by passing classified secrets to the Soviets. Daulton agrees to actually contact and deal with the KGB on Chris' behalf, motivated not by any idealism, but by what he perceives as an great opportunity to make a lot of money and eventually settle in his idea of paradise of Costa Rica. And as one would predict, these sort of illegal activities don't last too long and the twisted dreams of these boys, no matter how they've been motivated, come crashing down around them.

Although I consider this one of Timothy Hutton's best roles after ORDINARY PEOPLE (1980), THE FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN was not a particularly popular film during it's theatrical run. It did obtain some interesting notoriety as a broadcast of the film on HBO in 1986 was jammed by a satellite broadcast operator calling himself "Captain Midnight". I wish I'd seen that.

Some interesting facts about Christopher Boyce himself. In 1980, he escaped from prison and while a fugitive, committed seventeen bank robberies in Idaho and Washington State, eventually being captured in 1981. Boyce was just finally paroled in 2002, as was Daulton Lee before him 1998. Boyce later justified his actions by claiming that he was selling this information in the hopes of fostering peace between the Soviet Union and the United States. But when you consider the fact that he began his crimes during the 1970s when the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War were at their height, why would an intelligent young man be so shocked and disillusioned to learn that his own govenment was so corrupt? Come on, everybody knows THAT!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Christopher Boyce: "I know a thing or two about predatory behavior, and what once was a legitimate intelligence agency is now being used on weaker governments."

FAIL-SAFE

2011-11-12T13:23:00.009-05:00

(October 1964, U.S.)

Without going into too much unnecessary details regarding comparisons between Sidney Lumet's FAIL-SAFE and Stanley Kubrick's DR. STRANGLOVE, both fictional tales of a Cold War nuclear crisis, let me just simply state that Kubrick's film is a film that is outright funny. FAIL-SAFE is anything but. The suspense can have you sitting there full of tension because you know in your bones that this is all going to end on an apocalyptic level.

Despite the similarities, controversies and legal battles between FAIL-SAFE and DR. STRANGELOVE, the heart of it's dark tale could not have been more timely, considering it was 1964 and tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union were already at their height. This film expresses the discomfort with how much of the U.S. defense system is automated without any direct human responsibility. So when an unidentified object is detected approaching North America from Europe, the incident is regarded as a common occurrence and standard procedure is invoked, deploying American fighter aircraft to meet the potential threat. According to routine, American strategic bombers are directed to fly to various predetermined "fail-safe" points outside the borders of the Soviet Union, where they are to remain until receiving either orders to return to base or a special attack code transmitted through an electronic "fail-safe" box in each group commander's bomber.

(Are you all following this so far?)

So the Strategic Air Comman (SAC) computer system experiences a technical failure which causes a valid attack code to be electronically transmitted to one of the bomber groups. The commander of the bomber group, attempts to contact SAC to confirm the order, but is unable to do so, as the group's radio transmissions are being jammed by the Soviets. Having received a valid attack code, and with no known contrary orders, he proceeds with the group's designated attack mission: to drop thermonuclear bombs on Moscow (Uh-oh!). Now the commander will ignore all radio transmissions and orders from not only the President of the United States (played brilliantly by Henry Fonda), but even the voice of his own beloved wife.

What follows is not only interesting, but very frightening, as well. Knowing that Moscow is going to be unavoidably destroyed due to human error, the President is now in the horrifying position to save face and somehow "even the score". To do that, he must knowingly and deliberately order an equivalent nuclear strike on New York City, even with his own wife visiting the city. The entire premise is scary, to say the least, even when we are living in a time when the threat of nuclear arms does not hold a great fear with us. Can you possibly imagine what it must have been like to watch this tragic story unfold on screen during the height of the Cold War?

Getting back to Henry Fonda's performance for a moment - anyone who's seen enough movies has seen actors play fictional versions of the President of the United States. Michael Douglas in THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT (1995), Bill Pullman in INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996) and Harrison Ford in AIR FORCE ONE (1997) are just a few that come to mind. Fonda's intense attention to detail during a time of horrible crisis and gut-wrenching decisions make his portrayel as the President the best I've ever seen on film. Watch his face and listen to his voice and you'll see what I'm talking about and will also likely agree with my opinion. And check out a very young Larry Hagman as the president's Russian translator who must not only repeat the Soviet Chairman is saying, but also convincingly convey his feelings and emotions.

There are two elements I find particularly chilling in FAIL-SAFE. The first is the high-piched shrill sound of the telephone melting at the other end of the line when the nuclear explosions have destroyed the city of Moscow. The second are those final camera shots of typical New York City moments just before the missles are about to strike ground zero at the Empire State Building. Watching that, I can never help but wonder why it's always New York City that is the butt of all movie attacks. I think that September 11, 2001 was more life imitating art than one could possibly imagine!

Favorite line or dialogue:

President of the United States: "Yes, Mr. Chairman."
Soviet Chairman (via American translator): "Mr. President...I have ordered our long range missles to stand down from their alert. Only that part of our defense that has a chance of shooting down your bomber is still active. We do not think we have much of a chance."
President: "I know."
Chairman: "And yet this was nobody's fault."
President: "I don't agree."
Chairman: "No human being did wrong. No one is to be blamed."
President: "We're to blame. Both of us. We let our machines get out of hand."
Chairman: "Still, it WAS an accident."
President: "Two great cities may be destroyed. Millions of innocent people killed! What do we say to them, Mr. Chairman? Accidents will happen? I won't accept that!"
Chairman: "All I know is that as long as we have weapons..."
President: "All I know is that men are responsible! WE'RE responsible for what happens to us! Today we had a taste of the future! Do we learn from it or do we go on the way we have? What do we do, Mr. Chairman? What do we say to the dead?"
Chairman: "I think if we are men, we must say this will not happen again. But do you think it possible? With all that stand between us?"
President: "We put it there, Mr. Chairman, and we're not helpless! What we put between us we can remove!"

FAHRENHEIT 9/11

2011-11-11T08:19:00.010-05:00

(June 2004, U.S.)

The opening lines of director and narrator Michael Moore's documentary FAHRENHEIT 9/11 go something like this...

"Was it all just a dream? Did the last four years not really happen?"

Well, to put it simply, that's how I've more or less felt about most of the first decade of the 20th Century. I didn't always, though. From the moment the ball started to drop at Times Square on January 1, 2000 and we had gotten past our paranoia of Y2K, I was filled with a great (and rare!) sense of optimism for the future. Why wouldn't I be? I was young (younger), I was healthy, I was loving my job, I already knew that I wanted to marry my girlfriend someday (I did!) and I saw no reason whatsoever why Al Gore wouldn't be our next president of the United States.

(OOPS! Looks like the state of Florida managed to fuck that up for us!)

Even if we put aside the events of September 11, 2001 and our useless invasion of Iraq, take a brief tally of all we've had to endure in the first decade of the 20th Century and you'll likely be sickened by all that you come up with - anthrax in the U.S. mail, Richard Reid the shoe bomber, the D.C. sniper, lies about weapons of mass destruction, the Enron scandal, pedifile priests, Hurricane Katrina, our economic meltdown, Lady Gaga...I could go on forever...and it seems that in dark shadows of it all was the man I can only hope history will conclude as being the worst U.S. president in history, GEORGE W. BUSH! Damn, no wonder Time magazine called the 00's the "worst decade ever"! They were right!

So, for the benefit of those of you who haven't spent too much of their cinematic viewing time on documentaries, Michael Moore takes a very critical look at the presidency of George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and its coverage in the news media. Moore contends that American corporate media were "cheerleaders" for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and didn't provide an accurate or objective analysis of the rationale for the war or the resulting casualties there. The film generated intense controversy, including some disputes over its accuracy. Moore responds by documenting his many sources. Still, even with all these sources and the proof he attempts to provide on film, his allogations ultimately come down to the simple fact of whether or not the viewer believes it all or not. Do I believe it ALL? Not likely. To believe EVERY word of it would be to likely believe that our lame govenment not only ignored the warnings of the impending attack on U.S. soil, but also had a hand in ALLOWING it to happen, as well. For me, to accept that sort of horror would just be too, well, unacceptable. The rest of it, though, I can totally accept. Govenment, in my opinion, has always been rotten to the bone. Under Bush's command, though, the traditional brand of vile corruption just seem to take on a whole new incomprehensible horror.

Now as much as I despise George W. Bush, would you believe that there was a very brief period of time when I absolutely loved the man? I'm not kidding! In the weeks following 9-11, I had convinced myself that in the spirit of Ronald Reagan, Bush was going to kick the living shit out of our enemies who had attacked us. And when he showed up at Yankee Stadium to throw out the first pitch at one of the games during the World Series, that did it for me! I thought to myself, "This is it! This is going to be one of the greatest presidents of all time!" Instead of that, we decided to go to war with the wrong enemy - a people who had never attacked the United States before, nor had they ever threatened to attack the United States before.

Michael Moore is not a filmmaker that I would say I'm willing to cling to every word and allogation that comes out of his mouth. His look at the Bush administration and the powers that tore our country to Hell serve, if nothing more, than a tool to inflame your rage and hatred for a presidnet you may or may not have already come to hate. For myself, after I saw FAHRENHEIT 9/11 during the Summer of 2004, I was actually deluded enough to think that the film was powerful enough to possibly swing the coming November 2004 elections toward the Democratic party. Geez, look how wrong I was! EIGHT LONG YEARS WITH GEORGE W. BUSH!!! Uughh!!!

Well, that's all over now. We made history by electing our first African-American president, we finally killed Osama Bin Laden, and most importantly, we may have finally figured out that the first African-American (and Democrat) president is as capable of being just as good, bad, intelligent, clueless, effective or useless as any other U.S. president we've had in our history.

Favorite line or dialogue: (being that today is Veteran's Day, I can think of nothing more appropriate from the film)

Michael Moore narrating: "I've always been amazed that the very people forced to live in the worst parts of town, go to the worst schools, and who have it the hardest are always the first to step up, to defend that very system. They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is remarkably their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"

"Keep on rockin' in the free world!" (Neil Young, 1989)

FABULOUS BAKER BOYS, THE

2011-11-08T08:46:00.004-05:00

(October 1989, U.S.)

THE FABULOUS BAKER BOYS is a rather quiet, simple movie released by 20th Century Fox. There's no special effects, no 3D, no super heroes, and no roman numeral number attached to the title. In other words, it's a film that would NEVER be released today under Fox's main studio...under Fox Searchlight, perhaps. It's main appeal at the time of its release was the opportunity to see real life brothers Jeff and Beau Bridges star together as on-screen brothers. That prospect is very alluring to someone (like me) who'd like to watch two performers who can actually act. And speaking frankly, Michelle Pheiffer never looked hotter in her entire career!

Jack (Jeff) and Frank (Beau), are brothers making a living playing piano in lounges and music bars, their gimmick being that they play intricate jazz-and pop-flavored duets on matching grand pianos. Professionally and personally, Jack's life is a series of empty one-night stands. Now and again, he plays the challenging music he really cares about at a local jazz club, but it's become pretty clear that his life has become a mundane routine that has sickened him deep inside. Frank also shows signs of having just as much contempt for what they do together, as well, but clings to the fact that what he does pays the bills and supports him family, which in itself is enough for him to live the life he does.

So, for 31 years, its just been the Baker boys and things have moved along the same course without change...until they hire the beautiful but eccentric Susie Diamond (Pfeiffer), a former escort with unusual charisma, a sultry singing voice, and emotional baggage she keeps well hidden most of the time. After a rocky start, the new act becomes unexpectedly successful, leading to bigger gigs and better money, but Frank is worried that Jack will ruin it by letting his dick to the talking with Susie, having noticed the growing attraction between the two, and being all too well aware of his little brother's effect on women. He's not wrong about them having sex (twice), nor about that action eventually tearing the act apart. In the end, their professional relationship is over, but the brothers finally let each other know how much they care about each other, now that they don't have to work together. It seems that their connection is unbreakable, no matter what happens.

As mentioned above, THE FABULOUS BAKER BOYS is a quiet film, but also one of the moodiest films I've ever watched. Jack's cynicism and coldness to the world and events around him is hard to ignore, and frankly, sometimes reminds me of how I can feel sometimes about the world around ME. The cynicism I often feel in life leaves me walking away from this film with two inescapable conclusions. The first is that many of us spend our lives functioning through a daily, mundane existence that creates a deep, sickening hole in our system. That existence is usually classified as our job or career. The second is that regardless of any unconditional love, their is often no one in this world who is capable of pissing you off more than your own brother.

Is all that cynical enough for you?

Favorite line or dialogue:

Jack Baker: "Listen to me, princess. We fucked twice. That's it. Once the sweat dries, you still don't know shit about me! Got it?"

EYES WIDE SHUT

2011-11-02T08:32:00.009-04:00

(July 1999, U.S.)

When the final year of the 20th century began, I had only two films on my mind. The first was (just like the rest of the world), the first STAR WARS film in sixteen years. The second was the first Stanley Kubrick film in twelve years. However, in March of that year, Stanley died at the age of 70, and the next Kubrick film would become the last...his swan song. As it turned out, both films left a bit to be desired with fans.

Was EYES WIDE SHUT a misfire or a masterpiece? Was EYES WIDE SHUTa film only a true fan of Stanley Kubrick could love? Would it have been a better film had Kubrick lived long enough to oversee the editing process? Would it have been a better film if its stars had not been the same team that made DAYS OF THUNDER (1990) and FAR AND AWAY (1992) such bad films? Is having the opportunity to stare at Nicole Kidman's perfectly-sculpted ass enough reason to maintain the patience and open-mindedness to watch all two and a half hours of EYES WIDE SHUT? The answer to these question may just be both yes and no, depending on your own perspective.

The story is based upon Arthur Schnitzler's 1926 novella Traumnovelle (Dream Story). Set in and around New York City (filmed in London to LOOK like New York City, actually), the film follows the sexually-charged adventures of Dr. Bill Harford (played by Tom Cruise), who is shocked when his wife, Alice (played by Nicole Kidman), reveals that she had contemplated an affair a year earlier when she set her sights on a naval officer when she was in Cape Cod with her family. Provoked by his fears and jealousies, Bill embarks on a night-long adventure, during which he encounters more than several sexual situations that can put his life in danger, including a massive masked ritual orgy of an underground quasi-religious cult located in Glen Cove, Long Island, no less.

Kubrick's pacing of this film is considerably slow (but then so was 2001). This may be intended to convey the film's concept of a dream state (with an ongoing Christmas background) throughout the lives of both Bill and Alice, as well as the people they encounter. As the viewer, we're never given a clear definition of what is their reality and what is their dream. Is it only within a dream that we as human beings have the potential (or the stupidity) to seek out sexual pleasures and deviances that will very likely get us into trouble? Most of us are just that stupid in our everyday realities. And yet it should be noticed that just about every time Bill is on the brink of some new form of sexual discovery, he's inconveniently (or miraculously) interrupted before anything can really happen. This can perhaps be interpreted as a sign that we should all keep our "feet on the ground" when it comes to commitment issues of intimacy and marriage because the concept of sexual misguidance outside the bonds of marriage is very clear and so are its regrets and consequences. In the end, though, and in an almost cliche-like tone, it appears that the marriage of Bill and Alice will survive now that they are both "awake". And apparently, a good fuck won't hurt them, either.

Having ended my last paragraph on that note, I have to say that it really burns me up that the very last line spoken in what would turn out to be the final film of Stanley Kubrick's long and distinguished career is Nicole Kidman standing in FAO Schwartz saying, "Fuck." The other thing that has infuriated me about watching this film is the fact that the characters (particularly Cruise's) have this intolerable nasty habit of constantly repeating the last thing that was previously said to them. I find it hard to believe that Kubrick would write a screenplay with such a persistent annoyance. So that being the case, is that sort of dialogue an intentional element to somehow further convey the dream state that we may be involved in? Truth is, I still haven't figured that one out yet.

Stanley, EYES WIDE SHUT may not have been a perfect film, but I want you to know that your films meant so much to my life. I miss you and I'll never forget you.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Alice Harford: "Millions of years of evolution, right? Right? Men have to stick it in every place they can, but for women...women it is just about security and commitment and whatever the fuck else!"
Bill Harford: "A little oversimplified, Alice, but yes, something like that."
Alice: "If you men only KNEW..."

THE EXORCIST

2011-10-31T08:26:00.020-04:00

(December 1973, U.S.)

Those of you who may have been paying closer attention to my blog than others may have noticed that over the last several weeks I've been posting my films rather sparingly. I must confess that I've been doing that intentionally so that I may write about and discuss one of the scariest films of all time on the day of Halloween. Yes, that's extremely corny, but admitedly effective, nonetheless. So, here it is...the one...the only...the classic...the original 1973 version of THE EXORCIST!

To actually spend time discussing the basic plot of THE EXORCIST would likley be as productive as disussing the plot of JAWS or STAR WARS. It's just one of those films that everyone who's ever been to or watched movies has heard of and already knows what it's about. So, what I'd like to do instead is spend some time focussing on some elements, sequences and themes that make THE EXORCIST the truly powerful and effective film that it is. You see, what I've hoped to achieve with my blog is to not only inspire my readers, based on my writings, to see films they've never seen before, but to perhaps also watch films they HAVE seen before with a more critical eye to the specific. I hope.

What is it that truly scares us about THE EXORCIST? Yes, the idea of demonic possession is in itself a very scary thing (and also an overused theme in films during the 1970s), but let's consider some of the surrounding elements that go with it. The film's demonic possession scares us because it is truly an incomprehensible thing while being based on the very ideas of good and evil in the New Testament. The film scares us because this sort of incomprehensible evil is happening to an innocent little girl. The film scares us because we watch a team of medical physicians put this poor little girl through a series of painful procedures to uncover the secret of her personality changes when we, as the audience, know the truth. The film scares us with it's visual effects, and I'm not necessarily speaking of Regan's (played by Linda Blair) hideous physical transformation or her pea soup projectile vomit, though that is in itself unnerving. I'm speaking more of sequences like Father Damien Karras' (played by Jason Miller) frightening dream sequence when for just a flash moment we see the image of that evil white face with the red eyes. Take a look...

(Shit, if THAT image doesn't keep you up at night in bed with the shivers, I don't know what will!)

The film scares us because the tension, the fear and the drama build up to what will ultimately become a battle between two good men of God and the evil spirit of the Devil. The film scares us because during this battle we watch two seemingly gentle priests reach their point of absolute fury and rage as they repeatedly shout, "The power of Christ compells you!" to save the soul of the innocent girl.

Beyond the fear of THE EXORCIST also lies the incomprehensible ideas of real life that we've likely never seen before. I'm specifically referring to a pair of priest hanging out together in a college bar, drinking beer, smoking cigarettes and listening to The Allman Brothers Band on the jukebox. Priests molesting children I can believe (because that happens!). Priests being hip and cool in the 1970s, not really. Also, have you ever wondered why all of Chris MacNeil's (played by Ellen Burstyn) servants did not get the hell out of that house when the evil possession took over? I mean, loyalty is one thing, but geez!

Now let me move onto a point that may border on the philosophical. And please remember that this theory is coming from a lover of film and NOT a man with any religious beliefs or practices or even one who believes in God (because I don't!). There is specific line spoken in the film that I've never been able to get out of my head. During a scene when a doctor is trying to explain what exorcism is to Chris MacNeil, he says, "Well, it's a stylized ritual in which the rabbi or the priest try to drive out the so-called invading spirit." Did you catch the word RABBI? So, that got me thinking about a thing or two and it was almost exactly one year ago that I decided to discuss this point with my cousin Danny, who is lot more Jewish and religious than I'll ever want to be. My theory is this...somewhere in the New Testament is a section called "The Rite of Exorcism" which, to me, says that the Book is equipped with some sort of practical weapon of defense against evil, should a reality like that ever come to pass. So it occurs to me - what if a JEW were to become possessed by some evil spirit? What practical weapon against evil does the Old Testament hold? Well, as I suspected my cousin Danny would tell me - nothing, nada, zip! This is because (apparently) Jews do not believe in evil possession or Hell, for that matter. Okay, but if evil truly existed and could take the form of a human being, would it really discriminate between a Jew or a Gentile? Does one's non-belief in evil or Hell really mean that it may not exist? And if it does, how would we combat it? Again, I'm not a theologist or even a religious thinker. This is all coming from someone who just loves great films and spends some of his time developing his silly thoughts for discussion. But just take a moment to picture two angry Hasidic rabbis shouting in thick accents, "Ze power of Moses compells you!" over and over again to save the soul of a "nice Jewish girl". Sounds like something Mel Brooks would have done if he'd thought of it first.

So, my friends, the next time you decide to watch THE EXORCIST, watch it with an eye for some of the details I've pointed out. And if you happen to be Jewish, consider the other points I made, as well - just for the fun of it anyway. And by the way, Happy Halloween everyone!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Father Damien Karras: "Look, I'm only against the possibility of doing your daughter more harm than good."
Chris MacNeal: "Nothing you could do could make it any worse."
Damien: "I can't do it. I need evidence that the church would accept as signs of possession."
Chris: "Like what?"
Damien: "Like her speaking in a language she's never known or studied."
Chris: "What else?"
Damien: "I don't know. I'd have to look it up."
Chris: "I thought you were supposed to be an expert."
Damien: "There are no experts. You probably know as much about possession than most priests. Look, your daughter doesn't say she's a demon. She says she's the Devil himself. Now if you've seen as many psychotics as I have, you'd know it's like saying you're Napoleon Bonaparte. You asked me what I think is best for your daughter. Six months under observation in the best hospital you can find."
Chris: "You show me Regan's double, same face, same voice, everything. And I'd know it wasn't Regan. I'd know in my gut. And I'm telling you that thing upstairs isn't my daughter. Now, I want you to tell me that you know for a fact that there's nothing wrong with my daughter, except in her mind! You tell me for a fact that an exorcism wouldn't do any good! You tell me that!"

EXODUS

2011-10-26T20:27:00.016-04:00

(December 1960, U.S.)

This post for Otto Preminger's film of EXODUS should probably have been ghost-written by my cousin Danny. He's a thousand times more the Jew than I'll ever want to be, he's half Isreali and he surely knows a lot more about the factual history behind the events that happened on the ship "Exodus" in 1947 and dealing with the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 than I'll ever be aware of. Still, it's my blog so I'll give it a go...

To begin with, I have to say that when considering the decade of the 1960s before about 1967, it's confusing to really know how the tide was turning in Hollywood. Film historians tell us that the entire major studio system was on the verge of total collapse. Yet despite that claim, we still had an array of incredible films like LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, SPARTACUS, THE GUNS OF NAVARONE, GRAND PRIX, THE GREAT ESCAPE and of course, EXODUS.

For this historical epic, we have the great stars Paul Newman as Ari Ben Canaan, a Haganah (look that up) rebel who previously was a captain in the Jewish Brigade of the British Army in World War II and Eva Marie Saint as Nurse Katherine "Kitty" Fremont, an American volunteer at the Karaolos Internment camp on Cyprus, where thousands of Jews - Holocaust survivors - are being held, as the British won't let them go on to Palestine. They're anxiously awaiting the day they will be liberated. Ari has obtained a cargo ship to smuggle 611 Jewish inmates out of the camp for an illegal voyage to Mandate Palestine before being discovered by military authorities. When the British find out that the refugees are in a ship in the harbor of Famagusta, they blockade the harbor. The refugees stage a hunger strike and Ari threatens to blow up the ship and the refugees. The British eventually relent and allow the "Exodus" safe passage to Palestine.

During this time, opposition to the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states is heating up. Young Dov Landau (played by Sal Mineo) proclaims his desire to join the Irgun, a radical Zionist underground network who devise a series of terrorist explosions in a crowded hotel. Terrorism is key here in that it not only represents the evil behind the murder of many hotel residents, but also the plot to free the captured terrorists. And yet even among this political turmoil and tragedy, there is still time in the film for two kids (Dov and a young Jewish girl named Karen) to fall in love. This love is ultimately doomed, though, during a time of war, destruction and death. For even as an independent Israel is now in plain view, it's the inevitable death of Karen and Taha (played by John Derek), an Arab village leader that will ultimately bring people together in the end with a message to the world. Karen and Taha (Jew and Arab) are buried together in one grave and at the Jewish burial ceremony, Ari swears on their bodies that someday, Jews and Arabs will live together and share the land in peace. I'm afraid that true history has taught us differently, though, hasn't it?

Widely characterized as a "Zionist epic", EXODUS was identified by many commentators as having been enormously influential in stimulating Zionism and support for Israel in the United States. Although this film softens the anti-British and anti-Arab sentiment of the original Leon Uris novel, the film remains controversial for its depiction of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and for what some scholars have perceived to be its lasting impact on American conceptions (or MISconceptions) of what regional turmoil really is.

Cousin Danny, if you're reading this now, let me just say that you probably could've written this up just a little better than I. Oh, well.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Katherine "Kitty" Fremont: "Can't you understand that you make me feel like a Presbyterian when you can't, just for a minute or two, forget that you're a Jew?"

EVIL UNDER THE SUN

2011-10-21T08:27:00.008-04:00

(March 1982, U.S.)

I've said this before and I'll gladly say it again - I'd love to see another star-studded Agatha Christie film on the big screen. EVIL UNDER THE SUN was the last one to be released in 1982 and my entire family went to see it at a small movie theater in Roslyn, New York. We all loved it. Like DEATH ON THE NILE preceeding it four years earlier, it was shot on location in exotic locales and featured the glorious cinematography and costume designs that would give it its lavish experience to the viewer. The character of Belgian detective Hercule Poirot (played again by Peter Ustinov) returns to entertain us with his unigue brand of sleuthing. However, this time, unlike DEATH ON THE NILE, there is only one body, and the deceased in questions probably deserved her fate just as much as the others have in the past.

The murder victim (and a real bitch, too!) is the glamorous actress Arlena Marshall (played by Diana Rigg) on an Adriatic island in the fictional kingdom of "Tyrania" while on holiday with her new family, other assorted characters who each have individual reasons and motives to hate and kill her, and of course, the great Hercule Poirot (he just happens to be there). Arlena's been found alone on the beach strangled to death, but by all practical and logical purposes, NOBODY seems to have had the time or the opportunity to actually commit the murder. So we undeniably have a body, a list of viable suspects and yet it appears that no one did it (Hmmmmmm!). This sort of confusion and illusion of facts serves to be the perfect set up for what will ultimately become the great payoff when Hercule Poirot reveals to the entire cast not only who did it and why, but also the step-by-step process in which HOW they did it and how they were able to deceive not only the other suspects, but the audience, as well. It's the type of mysterious deception that can puts a big smile on your face in the end when you say to yourself, "Wow, I can't believe that's how they did it!"

Of course, don't expect me to tell you who did it and how. Not only would that be a real shitty thing to do to those who haven't seen the film and want to, but I also don't think I could explain it all with any reasonable justice. EVIL UNDER THE SUN is one of those entertaining film experiences you have to give to yourself. So enjoy it!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Arlena Marshall: "Linda do stop standing there like a coughdrop and say good morning to Monsieur Poirot!"

ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND

2011-10-18T08:37:00.012-04:00

(March 2004, U.S.)

It's amazing what a cinematic sucker I am for something really fresh and original on screen. Nothing seduces me more than being taken in a story direction I've never been on before. That's probably why I love David Lynch so much. In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd swear that ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, a thought-provoking story of romantic fantasy that uses elements of science fiction, psychological thriller, and nonlinear narration to explore the nature of memory and romantic love, is likely to be pure "Lynchian" technique. Alas, though, the film is scripted by Charlie Kaufman and directed by Michel Gondry.

The idea that one could possibly undergo a procedure where a person or event could literally be erased from one's mind and memory is absolutely mind-boggling because I can personally attest to the fact that I've fantasized about that idea myself (remember that girl I told you about in my post for DEAD POET'S SOCIETY?). Honestly, haven't you?? When emotionally withdrawn Joel Barish (played by Jim Carrey) and unhinged free spirit Clementine Kruczynski (played by Kate Winslet) strike up a relationship on a Long Island Rail Road train from Montauk, New York, they are inexplicably drawn to each other, despite their radically different personalities. What they don't realize is that they are actually both former lovers whose long relationship ended badly and that they BOTH decided to utilize the services of Lacuna, Inc. to each erase the other person from their own memory. Following this, so far?

For much of the film, we experience the flashback of Joel's erasing procedure through his own mind. As his memories are literally deleted, Joel finds himself revisiting them in reverse. Upon seeing happier times of his relationship with Clementine from earlier in their relationship, he struggles to preserve at least some memory of her and his love for her. Despite his efforts, the memories are slowly erased, with the last memory of Clementine telling him, "Meet me in Montauk". It works, because as stated above, they do meet again in Montauk (I've never seen the beach look so beautiful in the dead of winter before!) only to relive each other all over again despite each other's erasure. So what does this all mean? That we're destined to be with that one particular person whether we like it or not? I suppose that's a beautiful proposal, depending on who the person is.

In an interesting plot twist, Joel and Clementine happen to come upon their Lacuna records shortly after RE-encountering each other on the train. They react with shock and bewilderment, given that they have no clear memory of having known each other, let alone having had a relationship and having had their memories erased. Joel is convinced that they can start over, regardless and their relationship commences again, this time each of them knowing that the other person is very far from perfect. Certainly puts a new twist on the prospects of dating, doesn't it?

ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND is not only one of the most original stories I've ever seen on film, but also one of the ten best films of the last decade, in my opinion.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Clementine Kruczynski: "Meet me in Montauk."

E.T. THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL

2011-10-10T08:14:00.028-04:00

(June 1982, U.S.)

Anyone currently 35 years or older can probably look back on their childhood and find it difficult to remember a time when E.T. was not part of our popular culture. Seriously, take a moment and recall not only the film itself, but all that merchandising, the Reese's Pieces, the great flying theme by John Williams, that record with Michael Jackson, that really bad home video game from Atari, the theme park ride(s), and of course, the immortal line, "E.T. phone home." Yes, E.T. was more than just a blockbuster movie during a summer that also gave us the third ROCKY and second STAR TREK film, but a true pop culture icon of the 1980s. And despite the fact that the alien himself resembled nothing more than a sqashy-looking slug, the whole world found him irresistably cute, nonetheless. So did I.

Now while I can't claim that E.T. is my favorite Steven Spielberg film (that honor belongs to CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND), I can claim that almost no other family film has ever put such a consistent smile on my face while I'm watching it as this has, and like many other fans, my smile easily turns to sadness during that classic goodbye sequence at the end when E.T. is going home. But in writing this post, I'd like to make an attempt to get past the general "feel good" family feeling of the film and see if there aren't more serious themes behind the story of E.T. It's a true celebration of one's childhood, yes, but even childhood has its many obstacles. Any Spielberg fan probably knows that the separation of Elliot's parents deeply reflects the divorce of Spielberg's own parents when he was a young boy. But consider, for a moment, who E.T. represents to Elliot beyond the obvious facade of friendship - is E.T. not truly a surrogate father figure to Elliot more than anything else? His little sister Gertie is still but a baby and his older brother Michael comes off as more of an immature, uncertain goofball more than a brotherly mentor. E.T., while lost and confused on our planet Earth, is, in my opinion, the symbol of the smarter, wiser adult that a growing child needs to bond to during a fragile time of questions and curiousity. The father is gone (he's in Mexico with Sally), so E.T. seems the worthy replacement. And yet, at the same time, E.T.'s vulnerability gives Elliot the adult strength to help him and save his life at the crucial moments of the film when our own "evil" government invades our homes and our lives and tries to take from us what we treasure most - our comfort and safety.

This is truly a family film where we see the world through the eyes of children more than anything else. But consider, for a moment, the strong governmental character that actor Peter Coyote plays. A man with no name, he's dubbed simply as "keys" due to the jangling keys hanging from his pants. The question, I feel, is not so much who is he, but rather who WAS he? He says to Elliot in the film, "He came to me, too. I've been wishing for this since I was ten years-old." Was E.T. here before and did he discover "keys" as a young boy, as well? What sort of childhood must "keys" have been harboring having met and lost E.T. and then waited and waited for that miracle moment when E.T. might return to him? If all of this speculation is relevant, is it any wonder why "keys" would grow up to become a government official who spends his life seeking out extra terrestrial life? Makes you think that perhaps Elliot will inevitably grow up to be the same kind of man as "keys". It would certainly make sense.

Speilberg once said in an interview that E.T. is one of the two film he'd like to be rembered for the most. He'll very likely get what he wants. E.T. not only touched the world back in the 1980s when I was a teenager, but has continued to touch the hearts of generations since then. Stronger than the memory of seeing E.T. on screen for the first time myself is the memory I keep of showing E.T. to my little boy for the first time and watching his face light up with joy. And as the 2012 approaches, and with it the 30th anniversary of the film, I can only hope there there will be a special screen re-release engagment to celebrate. I'd like to take my son to see it.

Finally, I'd like to tell you about a man that I know named Steven (NOT Spielberg, but oh man, how I wish that were the case!). This man Steven was (and still is) the creator of undoubtedly the best fan-based web site of Steven Spielberg films out there called Speilbergfilms (look for it on Facebook). Now while I can't claim to know Steven personally, it became obvious over the years as a web fan that he not only seems not only the true authoritative fan on Spielberg and his work, but I also surmised that E.T. THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL is his favorite Spielberg film of all time. He's discussed it with great passion and has often spoke of hom much pride he's taken in watching the film with his kids. So it is to Steven that I dedicate this post. Thank you for giving THIS Spielberg fan, who thought he knew a lot about the great film maker, just a little bit extra insight.

And THANK YOU, Steven Spielberg for the true magic and joy you gave me and the rest of the world when you gave us the immortal E.T.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Elliot: "He's a man from outer space and we're taking him to his spaceship.'
Greg: " Well, can't he just beam up?"
Elliot: "This is REALITY, Greg."

ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK

2011-10-07T08:34:00.013-04:00

(July 1981, U.S.)

When I first saw John Carpenter's ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK as a young pre-teenager, the idea that the island of Manhattan could one day in the dystopian future of 1997 actually become a walled maximum security prison did not seem so far-fetched to me. After all, it was 1981 and New York City was a frightening crime-ridden shit hole (parts of it still are, in my opinion). That in mind, the film for me has always seemed a lot more terrifying than your average futuristic science fiction film. Even today, look at the blacked-out deserted city streets, the underground-dwelling "crazies" and especially that wild looking street punk with the crazy laugh who looks like a cross between German actor Klaus Kinski and British rocker Billy Idol and tell me if don't start to feel the shivers coming on. The entire film, in fact, feels like one of those low budget, terrifying grindhouse movies you might watch in the middle of the night on 42nd Street.

Back in the day, it seemed that ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK was the coolest movie out there for young kids (despite the R rating) and Kurt Russell's character of Snake Plissken was the coolest character in movies. It was even cool just to say the name...SNAKE PLISSKEN! He's a sentenced criminal, but he's also the anti-hero given the challenge of rescuing the President of the United States (played by Donald Pleasence) whose aircraft just crashed in New York City after a terrorist takeover of Air Force One...and he has just twenty-four hours to do it. Oh, the President's still alive, by the way, because he escaped in the aircraft pod before the plane went down. Just thought I'd make that clear. So, Snake makes his way through the Hellish worlds inside the city to eventually find the President and take on the self-proclaimed, A-Number One, "Duke of New York" (played by Issac Hayes). Now keep in mind as you view this futuristic world of New York City that it becomes pretty damn obvious that this was NOT filmed on location (St. Louis, actually). Regardless, though, there are enough subtle landmarks of the city to temporarily convince you, otherwise - the World Trade Center, the New York Public Library, Central Park and the 59th Street Bridge (69th in the film for some reason), all of them looking quite post-apocalyptic and menacing in appearance.

There is one particular scene that continues to give me an unsettling feeling. Take a look at the moment when Air Force One is headed straight toward the lower part of one of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center just before it crashes into another building. John Carpenter filmed this just over twenty years before the events of September 11, 2001 would take place. If ever there was a moment where world history imitated art, it's this. Very frightening, indeed.

Finally, let me just say that when 1997 did finally arrive, New York City, under then Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's rule, was not a prison. In fact, it went completely the other way with the demolition of 42nd Street's grindhouse movie theaters and replaced by Broadway theaters and Disney family shows, as well as the expulsion of all the hookers (too bad for that!). It was also in 1997 that I tried to watch the film's sequel, ESCAPE FROM L.A., on HBO. I didn't get past thirty minutes of it. How can any film be considered terrifying when it takes place during the day under the bright California sunshine?? Didn't work for me.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Narrator: "In 1988, the crime rate in the United States rises four hundred percent. The once great city of New York becomes the one maximum security prison for the entire country. A fifty-foot containment wall is erected along the New Jersey shoreline, across the Harlem River, and down along the Brooklyn shoreline. It completely surrounds Manhattan Island. All bridges and waterways are mined. The United States Police Force, like an army, is encamped around the island. There are no guards inside the prison, only prisoners and the worlds they have made. The rules are simple: once you go in, you don't come out."

And thus, the future is NOW.

ENGLISH PATIENT, THE

2011-10-06T08:31:00.014-04:00

(November 1996, U.S.)

You wanna know how silly the human brain can work itself sometimes? Anyone who's seen THE ENGLISH PATIENT knows what a wonderful film it is and that it won best picture of its year, etc., etc., etc. Yet every time I think of that film the first thing that keeps popping into my mind is that episode of SEINFELD where Elaine goes to see THE ENGLISH PATIENT with her boyfriend, she hates it, and as a result of that her boyfriend breaks up with her. I'm sorry, but I just can't help it. That's how fucked up the human brain can be sometimes!

Okay, so now for the film itself. Set before and during World War II, it's a story of love, fate, misunderstanding, healing and redemption. The film depicts a critically burned man, at first known only as "the English patient," who's being looked after by Hana (played by Juliette Binoche), a French-Canadian nurse in an abandoned Italian monastery. The mysterious patient is reluctant to disclose any personal information about himself, but through a series of film flashbacks, we're allowed into his past. It's slowly revealed that he is in fact a Hungarian geographer, Count László de Almásy (played by Ralph Fiennes), who was in the process of making a map of the Sahara Desert, and whose affair with a married English woman, Katharine Clifton (played by Kristin Scott Thomas), ultimately brought about his present situation. Ironically, when the two lovers first meet, he's almost repelled by her presence and seemingly wants nothing to do with her. Is it because she's married or is it because he's incapable of real love? We're never sure. Ultimately, love, erotic passion and personal sacrifice cannot be denied. When Katharine is critically injured in a plane crash and brough to a cave by her lover, his undying affection for her is brought to the test when he must walk through the scorching desert to find help and then escape his enemies in order to return to her. By the film's end, all principle characters have found reconciliation, including Katharine and Count László, even in their own deaths.

Shot on location in Italy and the deserts of Tunisia, the exterior cinematography of the film (particularly the deserts) could easily be compared to David Lean's work in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. That's a pretty bold comparison and I don't suppose there'll ever be another film that could be compared to LAWRENCE OF ARABIA in that respect. THE ENGLISH PATIENT, however, under the late Anthony Minghella's direction, can at best, be deemed a very worthy homage. It's a film you should definitely see more than once. The first time you may accumulate many questions. The second time you're likely to get some answers.

THE ENGLISH PATIENT won the Oscar for best picture of 1996.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Hana: "There's a man downstairs. He brought us eggs. He might stay."
Count Laszlo: "Why? Can he lay eggs?"
Hana: "He's Canadian."
Laszlo: "Why are people always so happy when they collide with someone from the same place? What happened in Montreal when you passed a man in the street? Did you invite him to live with you?"

ENEMY AT THE GATES

2011-10-03T18:52:00.019-04:00

(March 2001, U.S.)

From one war film right into another...it's happened before...it could happen again. However, this is one of the few war films I own where our heroes are not our beloved Americans. In a definite indication that the Cold War is long gone and the Russians are no longer to be feared, Jean-Jacques Annaud's ENEMY AT THE GATES has us rooting for the Russians in a story that describes the events surrounding the Battle of Stalingrad from 1942 to 1943. It's based on a cat-and-mouse duel developed between the legendary Soviet sniper Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev (played by Jude Law) and his German counterpart, Major Erwin König (played by Ed Harris), as they stalk each other during the long battle. Zaitsev uses impressive marksmanship skills—taught to him by his grandfather from a young age to save himself and his commissar Danilov (played by Joseph Fiennes). But even as his skills progressively improve the fighting morale amongst the Russian soldiers, there is still great human fear and doubt behind his actions. Zaitsev and Danilov also both become romantically interested in Tania (played by Rachel Weisz), a citizen of Stalingrad who's become a Private in the local militia. Of course, you have to have a love triangle in a war film, right?

Perhaps the most interesting element of any one-on-one battle between two men of equal stature during a time of war is that they're placed in a situation where they have to try to use their intelligence and skills to ultimately kill each other. If you're a fan (or extremely hopeful) of traditional cliche, then you know the good guy will likely emerge victorious (and alive!) in the end. That, however, doesn't mean you won't be on the edge of your seat with viewer's tension until it all climaxes on screen. And like any other war film I've discussed in the past, this film is not without its thrilling share of battle warfare and political intruigue. The twist here is to take your mindset away from the traditional gung-ho American spirit and appreciate a time when a country that was once our Cold War enemies is forced to defend their city, their honor and their freedom.

I can't help but have a rather different view of war films that were released just before the events of 9-11, including this film and PEARL HARBOR (2001). When you consider that these films were only months before our own country would be horribly attacked by a destructive force, it makes such films just a little more thought-provoking (yes, even a film by Michael Bay!).

Favorite line or dialogue:

Nikita Khrushchev: "My name...is Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev. I've come to take things in hand here. This city...is not Kursk, nor is it Kiev, nor Minsk. This city...is Stalingrad. Stalingrad! This city bears the name of the Boss. It's more than a city, it's a symbol. If the Germans...capture this city...the entire country will collapse. Now...I want our boys to raise their heads. I want them to act like they have balls! I want them to stop shitting their pants! That's your job. As political officers...I'm counting on you. You...what's your suggestion?"
Officer #1: "Shoot all the other generals who have retreated, and their chiefs of staff, too."
Officer #2: "Make some examples. Deport the families of the deserters..."
Krushchev: "Yes, that's all been done."
Danilov: "Give them hope! Here, the men's only choice is between German bullets and ours. But there's another way. The way of courage. The way of love of the Motherland. We must publish the army newspaper again. We must tell magnificent stories, stories that extol sacrifice, bravery. We must make them believe in the victory. We must give them hope, pride, a desire to fight. Yes...we need to make examples. But examples to follow. What we need...are heroes."
Krushchev: "Do you know any heroes around here?"
Danilov: "Yes, comrade. I know one."

EMPIRE OF THE SUN

2011-10-02T15:50:00.021-04:00

(December 1987, U.S.)

EMPIRE OF THE SUN is what I personally like to refer to as Steven Spielberg's "inevitable" film. It was inevitable because even after he got totally fucked at the 1986 Academy Awards for THE COLOR PURPLE, Spielberg was still determined to make a film that would explore his ability to grow up. It was inevitable because Spielberg is known to have had a personal connection to the films of the great director David Lean, so a version of his own British film was...well, inevitable. This coming-of-age war film is based on J. G. Ballard's semi-autobiographical novel of the same name and stars newcomer (at the time) thirteen year-old Christian Bale. The film tells the story of Jamie Graham, a young boy who goes from living in a wealthy British family in Shanghai, to becoming a prisoner of war in the Lunghua Civilian Assembly Center, a Japanese internment camp, during World War II.

But let's start by talking about Christian Bale for a moment. He's spent the better part of the last two decades making quite an actor's name for himself, even in roles that don't necessarily include the likes of Batman. It particularly does my heart some good to see that this guy made real good on his career and didn't end up like too many so-called child stars and actors out there who fade away into oblivion. It would have been such a shameful waste to see such a performance that he gives in EMPIRE OF THE SUN never go any further than that film. That said, let me just say now that I personally consider Bale's performance in this film the greatest I've ever seen by a child on screen. That's a tall victory to give to just one child actor, but if you've seen him in this film, you know what I'm talking about and just might agree with me.

Bale's character of Jamie is one of the most complex children I've even seen. Not merely for his impressive knowledge of war planes and bridges, but even just his passive daydreaming of God and what he might have said while "playing tennis". But when he's separated from his parents during an attack on the city of Shanghai, he's as confused and terrified as any small child would be. Quickly, though, the concept of his own day-by-day survival during a time of war becomes apparant. As he grows up during the years at the Japanese prison camp, he's not only a survivor, but one who's learned to trade, sell and even con his way through the camp to not only ensure his own survival, but to ensure a position of acceptance among the American men he admires the most, particularly that of his caregiver, Basie (played by John Malkovich). These are the necessary skills needed for the boy to become a man. During this time of war, innocence is destroyed forever, which is a theme that actually contradicts Speilberg's previous effort to celebrate childhood in E.T. (1982). Yet on the other hand, childhood is once again rediscovered at the end when Jim is finally reunited with his parents (parents he can't even immediately recognize due to the scars of his war experiences) in a tradition theme of reunions that we'd previously seen in other Spielberg works like CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (1977) and THE COLOR PURPLE (1985). The act of flying symbolizes Jamie's possibility and danger of escape from the prison camp. His growing alienation from his pre-war child self and society is reflected in his hero-worship of the Japanese aviators based at the airfield adjoining the prison camp. He's constantly identifying himself, first with the Japanese, and then with the Americans when they start flying over in their Mustangs and B-29s.

My love for Spielberg's film making has never been a kept secret. However, there are several particular camera shots in EMPIRE OF THE SUN that I am particularly drawn to where we see Jamie in the forefront and the explosive action of battle taking place behind him in the background. There are moments where the madness of war takes its toll on young Jamie to the point where he's too excited about witnessing war planes in action to be too scared about risking his life in the middle of it all. But the one scene I've never been able to get out of my head is during the exodus march toward the end of the film when Jamie witnesses a flash from the atomic bombing of Nagasaki hundreds of miles away, and hears news of Japan's surrender and the final end of the war. The white light we see in the sky from Jamie's point of vision is quick and rather simple, but extraordinarily chilling when you consider what his just happened in our world history.

When EMPIRE OF THE SUN was first released in 1987, I was attending college in Buffalo, New York. Across the street from my dormitory building was a triplex that showed mostly independent and foreign films (films I had yet to really appreciate). So in order to satisfy my determination to see Spielberg's latest film on the big screen, I had to walk a considerable distance to a bus stop and then take TWO buses to the nearest town multiplex. I can still remember thinking to myself, upon leaving the theater, "That was totally worth the trip!". And it was, too.

Let me say, finally, that with all due respect to Bernardo Bertolucci, EMPIRE OF THE SUN is the film that I think SHOULD HAVE won the Oscar for best picture of 1987. Those bastards at the Academy didn't even nominate it!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Jamie Graham: "I learned a new word today...atom bomb. It was like a white light in the sky. Like God taking a photograph. I saw it."

ELEPHANT MAN, THE

2011-09-28T08:38:00.019-04:00

(October 1980, U.S.)

For some inexplicable reason, whenever I think about David Lynch's THE ELEPHANT MAN, the first thing I think about is not his impressive career, but rather THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (Exucse me?? Care to explain that one, Eric??). Well, it's not only because the film was released at the same time the second STAR WARS film was still going very strong, but it's also because during the previous Spring of 1980, the lead in the Broadway version of THE ELEPHANT MAN had been played by none other than Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker) himself. Okay, I didn't say that my reasons would make a whole LOT of sense, but it's the way my twisted mind sometimes works.

Now is it just me or does Mel Brooks (producer of this film) have some kind of strange attraction to stories of human deformity? I mean, the guy produced the 1986 remake of THE FLY, too! Well, be that as it may, his venture into a non-comic tale couldn't have been more to the opposite side of his traditional comedic coin. The true story of John Merrick (his name was Joseph in real life) is disturbing, shocking, depressing and touching at the right times. David Lynch's choice to shoot 19th Century England is black and white is visual cinematic genius, to say the least. John Hurt plays Merrick, but you'd never know it without properly checking the film credits. In this story, Merrick is discovered in a Victorian freak show by surgeon Dr. Frederick Treves (played by Anthony Hopkins) and is so deformed that he must wear a hood and cap whenever he's in public. Treves is professionally intrigued by Merrick's condition and brings him to his hospital so that he can examine him. The ward nurses are horrified by Merrick's appearance, so Treves places him in a quarantine room under the watchful care of the formidable matron, Mrs. Mothershead (played by Wendy Hiller). As Merrick learns to speak and slowly discover his own identity as a man, it begins to appears as if he was rescued from the cruelty of one freak show only to be substituted for a kinder, more civilized, acceptable version of the same freak show. Merrick is still being shown off in public and other people are managing to benefit greatly from his presence. At one point in the film, even Dr. Treves himself questions his motives and loosely compares himself to those who had previously mistreated Merrick.

You recall earlier when I used the word "touching" as one of the many adjectives for this film? That can easily be claimed when the famous actress Mrs. Madge Kendal (played by Mrs. Mel Brooks herself, Anne Bangcroft) arranges an evening at the local musical theatre. Presented in full formal attive, Merrick rises in the Royal Box to a standing ovation of London's society, having had the performance dedicated to him from Mrs Kendal. That night, back at the hospital, he lies down (something he's not supposed to do given the enourmous size of his head) on his bed and dies peacefully, consoled by a vision of his mother whom we have frequently seen a photograph of during the course of the film.

Rest assured, though, as touching and moralizing as much of THE ELEPHANT MAN can be at times, it's still filled with the richly bizarre and surrealistic style of film making and storytelling that any David Lynch fan would come to expect from his work. And who can't give John Hurt the highest credit he deserves for being able to achieve such a performance under the heaviest, most grueling of make-up mask experiences? This is also the same man that gave birth to a small alien out of his stomach the year before in ALIEN (1979).

Favorite line or dialogue:

John Merrick: "I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being! I am a man!"

EL CID

2011-09-26T21:20:00.017-04:00

(December 1961, U.S.)

If film history has proven one thing, it's proven that just about any historical epic starring Charlton Heston is going a successful, spectacular screen experience. Anthony Mann's story of the life of the Christian Castilian knight Don Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (played by Heston), called "El Cid", who in the 11th Century fought the North African Almoravides and ultimately contributed to the unification of Spain, is filled with all the widescreen spectacle, action and romance that will please any true film lover.

One of the first things we immediately learn about Rodrigo is that although his intentions always seem noble enough, he is constantly a provoking instigator. In the beginning, while simply on route to see his beloved future bride Doña Jimena (played by the Italian beauty Sophia Loren), he becomes involved in a battle against an army of the Moors. Rodrigo releases several captured Emir prisoners on the condition that they never again attack King Ferdinand of Castile. For this act he's accused of treason against the King by Jimena's father, Count Gormaz. Rodrigo kills Gormaz in defense of his family honor and his true love (temporarily) becomes his true enemy. Not for long, though - she'll love him again. As cliche might expect, when the King dies, his two sons immediately go to war to see who will ultimately claim the rightful throne. In a plot right out of HAMLET, the eldest son King Sancho is king only for a short time until he's assassinated by his younger brother Alfonso's doing (you see - I told you that it's BROTHERS that always seem to want to kill each other!). In a particularly intruiging scene, Rodrigo commits another bold act of defiance when he publicly challanges King Alfonso during the royal coronation to swear on the Holy Books that he had no part in his brother's killing. He does convincingly, but we as the viewer no better and we know that a Prince who has stolen the power needed to become King is, indeed, a dangerous man.

Another sequence I've always found impossible to ignore is the moment before the final battle when we alreay know that Rodrigo is dead. However, in order to give his army the proper inspiration and morale, and to also disuade and push the enemy back into the sea, he is positioned on his horse with his eyes wide open in order to give the appearance that he's alive, strong and ready to do battle. It's a deception that grabs your attention and makes your own eyes open just a little bit wider.

EL CID can sit proudly alongside a line of epic films of history, battle and romance that include the likes of BEN-HUR (1959), SPARTACUS (1960) and even GLADIATOR (2000). When I watch a film like this, even while I'm enjoying it immensely, I still find myself drifting off into a fantasy of having been around back in the day to have been able to see it on the big screen during it's exclusive roadshow engagements. THIS was a period of cinema history that I consider quite underated. It was also the period of cinema history that just started to usher in the beginning of the end for the entire Hollywood studio system of the 1960s. But that's another piece of history.

Favorite line or dialogue:

King Alfonso: "Rodrigo of Vivar, called the Cid, why do you alone refuse me fealty?"
Rodrigo Diaz: "Sire, all those you see here, though none dare say so, harbor the suspicion that you may have counseled your own brother's death. Unless you can prove your innocence, you will have no loyal subjects. Your kingdom will be torn by doubt. Thus, I cannot give you fealty, nor own you as my liege."
Alfonso: "What will satisfy you of my innocence?"
Rodrigo: "Your oath upon the Holy Books!"
Alfonso: "You would ask me to swear?"
Rodrigo: "Sire, I DO ask it!"
Alfonso: "Very well!"
Rodrigo: "Will you swear that you had no part in the ordering of King Sancho's death?"
Alsonso: "I so swear!"
Rodrigo: "Do you swear that you had no part by way of COUNSEL in King Sancho's death?"
Alfonso: "I so swear!"
Rodrigo: "Do you swear that you had no part by way of DESIGN in King Sancho's death?"
Alfonso: "I swear it!"
Rodrigo: "If you are foresworn, may you die such a death as your brother did! Struck from behind by the hand of a traitor! Say, "Amen'!"
Alfonso: "You press me too far, Rodrigo!"
Rodrigo: "Say 'Amen'!"
Alfonso: "Amen."

8 1/2

2011-09-25T16:31:00.019-04:00

(June 1963, U.S.)

If you're at the point in your life of film appreciation where you have yet to experience to world of Italian film maker Federico Fellini, then let me tell you that you'll be required to switch your brain into a mode of patience, tolerance and understanding that you may have never used before (and, frankly, a mode that most Friday night multiplex moviegoers NEVER use!). To experience the world of Fellini is to enter a level of fantasy and reality that can only best be described as pure artistic self-indulgence.

The title of 8 1/2 refers to Fellini's eighth and a half film as a director. His previous directorial work consisted of six features, two short segments, and a collaboration with another director, Alberto Lattuada, the latter three productions accounting for a "half" film each. By this point in his career, he'd reached a point where his ability for the proper inspiration and storytelling had reached a block. Solution? Make a black and white film about an Italian director named Guido Anselmi (played by long-time collaborator Marcello Mastroianni) who's reached a point where his ability for the proper inspiration and storytelling has reached a block. Get it? Stalled on his new science fiction film that includes veiled autobiographical references, Guido has lost all interest amid artistic and marital difficulties. As he struggles half-heartedly to work on his film, a series of flashbacks and dreams delve into his vivid memories and fantasies; however they are frequently interwoven with the reality he must contend with everyday. It's a film about the struggles involved in the creative process, both technical and personal, and the problems artists must face when expected to deliver something personal and profound with intense public scrutiny, on a constricted schedule, while simultaneously having to deal with their own personal demons. It is also, in a much larger sense, about finding true personal happiness in a difficult, fragmented life; something all of us probably deal with at one time or another.

All of these complex elements add up to, frankly, one of the most incomprehensible films you are ever likely to see in your life. But don't give up too quickly! Stay with it to fully absorb it's extraordinary black and white cinematography and to understand the above-mentioned themes. Let me tell you that when I first saw Fellini's 8 1/2, my initial reaction to its style and structure was, "Are you fucking kidding me??" Now I'm proud to actually call it my favorite foreign subtitled film of all time. How's THAT for improving one's maturity level when it comes to film? Let me also tell you that when my wife and I were dating back in 1999, I took her to see a special screening of 8 1/2 at the Paris Theatre in New York City. While being a very intelligent woman, let's just say she didn't exactly appreciate the film the way I did. As a matter of fact, she had this look on her face that suggested, "Are you fucking kidding me??"

This film, by the way, was inspiration to many other types of films, including American titles like ALL THAT JAZZ (1979), Woody Allen's STARDUST MEMORIES (1980) and most recently the musical NINE (2009).

Favorite line or dialogue:

Guido Anselmi: "I thought my ideas were so clear. I wanted to make an honest film. No lies whatsoever. I thought I had something so simple to say. Something useful to everybody. A film that could help bury forever all those dead things we carry within ourselves. Instead, I'm the one without the courage to bury anything at all. When did I go wrong? I really have nothing to say, but I want to say it all the same."

EAST OF EDEN

2011-09-22T13:01:00.017-04:00

(March 1955, U.S.)

In 1981, there was a four-part ABC-TV mini-series that was very faithful to John Steinbeck's original novel. I mention this only because it was due to this TV version that I later learned that Elia Kazan's theatrical version is only loosely based primarily on the second part of the novel, focussing on the story of a wayward young man named Cal (played famously by the great James Dean) who, while seeking his own identity, competes for the affection of his deeply religious father against his favored brother Aron (played by Richard Davalos).

But before getting into the film itself, there's something about this tale that brings to mind a fact I've often noticed, and that's this - have you ever noticed that nearly all stories featuring sibling rivalry have almost always pit BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER? Really, think about it. Cain and Abel, Moses and Ramses, Mufasa and Scar (THE LION KING), J.R. and Bobby Ewing (DALLAS), etc. If you're a fan of the British rock band, The Kinks, then you know that Ray and Dave Davies can't stand each other. I could probably go on and on. My point is, you almost never see stories of sibling rivalry featuring two sisters and I have yet to EVER see a story where a brother and sister go to war against each other. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm only saying I have yet to see it.

But back to EAST OF EDEN...

Set in the central California coastal towns of Monterey and Salinas during World War I, Cal and Aron are the young adult sons of a modestly successful farmer and wartime draft board chairman named Adam Trask (played by Raymond Massey). Cal is very moody and embittered by his belief that his father favors Aron (which he does). Although both Cal and Aron had long been led to believe that their mother had died, the opening scene of the film reveals that Cal has come to realize that his mother is still alive, owning and running a successful brothel in nearby Monterey. Not exactly the "fitting" wife for a religeous farmer, is it? Although Cal has many reasons to despise his father, he still years to please him and gain his acceptance. To do that, he seeks to profit from bean farming during wartime in order to earn back all the money his father lost during a refrigeration enterprise. Meanwhile, Aron's girlfriend Abra (played by Julie Harris) gradually finds herself attracted to Cal, who yearns to reciprocate her feelings (first rule of brotherly relations - don't steal his woman!). Anyway, getting back to the money...Cal's efforts to make his father happy with the money are actually quite touching, but it all ultimately turns tragic when his father refuses the money because he considers any sort of profiteering during wartime to be "blood" money, and he can't live with that. We watch on screen, James Dean being the 1950's cultural icon and heart-throb male that he was, break down like a weak, pathetic child when his father refuses his kind financial gesture. As a viewer, you can actually hear yourself thinking, "Oh, shit! This is all going to get so much worse!" It does.

The end of the film plays out in symbolic tradion of life and death. The relationship between Aron and Cal is dead, as is Cal's relationship with Abra and his father, as well. Aron, bitter and spiteful, is off to fight in the war and will surely meet his death. Adam has suffered a serious stroke and will likely die. However, their is the birth of Cal and Abra's new love for each other, as well as a new love and understanding between Cal and his father. So, I guess one could claim, that amidst a domino effect of tragic circumstances, there is the birth of a happy ending, after all.

EAST OF EDEN was the first of only three films James Dean ever made.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Cal Trask: "I've been jealous all my life. Jealous, I couldn't even stand it. Tonight, I even tried to buy your love, but now I don't want it anymore...I can't use it anymore. I don't want any kind of love anymore. It doesn't pay off."

EASTERN PROMISES

2011-09-21T08:35:00.011-04:00

(September 2007, U.S.)

When you think about the career of director David Cronenberg, I suppose his film making reputation could be compared to that of Steven Spielberg. In the beginning, it appeared that the man was geared only toward one type of film - in Cronenberg's case, gory horror films that included RABID and the remake of THE FLY. But then, all of a sudden, he's changing his form and his style and suddenly you're getting titles like NAKED LUNCH (1991), M. BUTTERFLY (1993), A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2005) and EASTERN PROMISES. But rest assured, though, that while I can't claim to have seen M. BUTTERFLY, the others that I mentioned are not without their share of unsettling gore. In fact, EASTERN PROMISES, a story about a British-Russian midwife's interaction with the Russian mafia in London and the subsequent sex trafficking of underage Russian girls, is one of the bloodiest crime films I've ever seen.

Viggo Mortensen's role of mob driver and "problem cleaner" Nikolai Luzhin comes off as pretty much the same kind of man you've seen ol' Viggo play before - the very silent and very deadly type. Anna Khitrova (played by Naomi Watts), is the above-mentioned midwife who finds a Russian-language diary on the body of Tatiana, a 14-year-old girl who dies in childbirth. She also finds a business card for the Trans-Siberian restaurant, which is owned by Semyon (played wonderfully by Armin Mueller-Stahl), a boss in the Russian Mafia or "vory v zakone" ("thieves in law"). Anna thus sets out to track down the girl's family so that she can find a home for the dead mother's baby girl. She risks her life in doing so because the mafia wants the incriminating diary destroyed and anybody who has any knowledge of it, as well.

Now in order to disucss this next part, I'm force to give away the fact that Nikolai is eventually revealed as an FSB agent who has infiltrated the mafia, working under license by the British Government. As part of his undercover duties, Nikolai was able to read Tatiana's diary before Semyon had it destroyed and hatched a plan to have Semyon arrested for statutory rape. However, I don't think it's particularly one hundred percent clear if his proposal to take over as "king" of the mafia sector is strictly a part of his cover or if he's suddenly decided to grab an opportunity to "turn to the dark side" and embrace the temptation of power. Listen to the dialogue and how it plays out in its applicable scene and you'll see what I mean.

With regard to the rather infamous knife fight in the sauna, I don't know what I find more unsettling - the excessive blood involved or the fact that I have to look at Viggo's totally naked ass and dick during the fight. I suppose straight women and gay men are getting a kick out of it, but for me...hmmmm.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Anna Khitrova: "Tell Semyon the baby I delivered last Sunday is his daughter."
Kirill: "What did she say?"
Nikolai Luzhin: "I don't know."
Anna: "When he raped her she was a virgin. They they gave her pills. He HAS to be the father!"

DUNE

2011-09-13T12:48:00.011-04:00

(December 1984, U.S.)

There are seven words that I want you all to get used to my repeating whenever applicable for my blog posts, and those words are, TIME CAN BE KIND TO ANY FILM, even to David Lynch's deliberately-bizarre and idiosyncratic "love it or hate it" version of Frank Herbert's acclaimed novel. DUNE is an ambitious, epic, completely mind-boggling, and, let's be honest, really fucking weird science fiction film and one of the most controversial films in the director's exceedingly provocative career. The story (if there is actually only ONE story) is quite complex and convoluted in the epic tradition, as it involvs political intrigue and the desert planet Arrakis that is home to a precious spice and gigantic sand worms.

To fully understand the controversy surrounding this film, I suggest you look it up. Let me just say, though, that prior to its release, Universal Pictures was quite confident it had their own STAR WARS saga on their hands, and marketed it as such. Did you know that David Lynch actually turned down the opportunity to direct RETURN OF THE JEDI in order to make DUNE instead (can you just IMAGINE the kind of Star Wars film David Lynch would have given us??). Needless to say, Universal didn't exactly get what they'd hoped for. DUNE was panned by critics and hated by audiences, as well. Was DUNE really such a bad film? Of course not, or I wouldn't have the film in my collection. In my humble opinion, I don't feel audiences and critics were ready to fully embrace the artistic style that David Lynch later became praised for in films like BLUE VELVET, MULLHOLLAND DRIVE and TV's TWIN PEAKS. In other words, people just might have been too impatient or too fucking stupid to get it. Over the years, though, DUNE managed to gain popular cult status following in the tradition of other intelligent, artistic science fiction films that failed to appeal to audiences at the time of their release - films like, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, THX-1138, SOLARIS and BLADE RUNNER, to name some. I'll be happy to admit that when I first watched DUNE on video in the 1980s, I didn't exactly walk away very pleased. I didn't hate it, but I didn't get it, either. Then some years later, after I became an avid fan of BLUE VELVET and TWIN PEAKS, I gave the film another look and fully appreciated the bizarre artistic style that Lynch was trying to convey.

Might DUNE have been a more popular film off the bat had the same exact film been released, say, seven-to-ten year later after TWIN PEAKS went off the air? Maybe. The fact remains that regardless of the history of DUNE, it's a dazzling and fascinating film with moments of action and cinematography that are not only fun to watch, but challenging to the eyes and the mind. The strangely whispered voice-overs that explain the characters' thoughts only require some patience and the ability to really listen. If you can manage to do that, then the film opens itself up even further beyond the tradition sci-fi sterotypes of good versus evil, space battles and giant monsters.

Let's not forget the great cast that was chosen for DUNE, also. Kyle Maclachlan in his debut film role as the hero Paul Atreides, Patrick Stewart in a pre-NEXT GENERATION sci-fi role, Max Von Sydow, Richard Jordan, Freddie Jones, Sean Young, Dean Stockwell, a very young Virginia Madsen and even Sting (right after The Police broke up). And hey, where else are you going to find an entire film scored by the rock band Toto?

So in short, film history can say whatever the fuck it wants to, but DUNE is one of the most intelligent, thought-provoking science fiction films ever made, in my opinion. David Lynch should feel nothing but pride for his achievement. Fuck the people if they didn't get it!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Princess Irulan: "A beginning is a very delicate time. Know then, that is is the year 10191. The known universe is ruled by the Padishah Emperor Shaddam the Fourth, my father. In this time, the most precious substance in the universe is the spice Melange. The spice extends life. The spice expands consciousness. The spice is vital to space travel. The Spacing Guild and its navigators, who the spice has mutated over 4000 years, use the orange spice gas, which gives them the ability to fold space. That is, travel to any part of the universe without moving. Oh, yes. I forgot to tell you...the spice exists on only one planet in the entire universe. A desolate, dry planet with vast deserts. Hidden away within the rocks of these deserts are a people known as the Fremen, who have long held a prophecy that a man would come, a messiah, who would lead them to true freedom. The planet is Arrakis, also known as Dune."

DUMB AND DUMBER

2011-09-13T08:40:00.013-04:00

(December 1994, U.S.)

Well, I told you that the next film would be something we could all laugh at. And what better to laugh at than the insane slapstick and gross-out humor of DUMB AND DUMBER.

Let me start off by clarifying something. Over the course of this blog, I may have given the impression that I'm just too damn serious about film and not capable of enjoying some screen silliness once in a while. Not true. I have, in my course of film appreciation, enjoyed many stupid comedies. The trouble I have is that when I see today's stupid array films over the last decade like THE 40 YEAR-OLD VIRGIN, THE HANGOVER or any of the number of Will Ferrel-starred films, my first reaction is like, "Man, I saw all that shit thrity-some-odd years ago!" I saw it in the form of ANIMAL HOUSE, CADDYSHACK, PORKY'S and FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH. If you're going to give me stupidity on the screen, at the very least give me SOMETHING I may not have seen already...something...anything!

So would I call the Farrelly brothers' DUMB AND DUMBER an example of true comedy originality? Of course not. But its premise of simply treating stupid guys like Lloyd Christmas (played outrageously by Jim Carrey) and Harry Dunne (played just as well by Jeff Daniels) as truly the stupid guys that they are without attempting to be sensitive or politically correct in nature is a stroke of comedic genius, in my opinion. It's a buddy movie and a road movie as our two would-be-heroes set off on a cross-country road trip in a van dressed up like a dog (the "Shaggin’ Wagon") to Aspen, Colorado ("Where the beer flows like wine.") to innocently return a suitcase to Mary Swanson (played by Lauren Holly), not knowing that the case is actually fully of ranson money that the bad guys will surely come looking for. Along the way, the two run into several misadventures, though they always manage to wriggle their way out of them. You see, even the most incredibly stupid of people can (rarely) display acts of cleverness when the need arrises. Just remember, though, that DUMB AND DUMBER is not a movie about plot. In fact, if it were anyone but crazy Jim Carrey, a movie filled with a series of instances where two men get to act like idiots would likely not hold up too long. But again, Carrey carries a role that he was born to play and he doesn't let up for even a moment of seriousness. And in all fairness to Jeff Daniels, the actor who has sported mostly dramatic roles, holds his idiotic end up well against Carrey. I can only just imagine the fun these two must have had with each other making this film. Just sitting together (mostly) naked together in a red heart-shaped tub drinking beers must have been cause for unbelievable laughter.

The timing of watching DUMB AND DUMBER was perfect for me, in a way, particularly after an entire day of solumn relfection on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Nothing keeps you in hysterical stitches like insanely-funny dialogue. And speaking of dialogue, I have to say that choosing my favorite line or dialogue for THIS one is going to be very tough, indeed, but I'll give it a go...

Favorite line or dialogue:

Lloyd Christmas: "I want to ask you a question... straight out, flat out... and I want you to give me an honest answer. What do you think the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?"
Mary Swanson: "Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really..."
Lloyd: " Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?"
Mary: "Not good."
Lloyd: "You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?"
Mary: "I'd say more like one out of a million."
Lloyd: "So you're telling me there's a chance...YEAH!!! I read you."

SEPTEMBER 11TH AND THE MEANING OF MOVIES IN OUR LIVES

2011-09-11T11:40:00.023-04:00

I hope you'll bear with me for a time while I pause during my blog posts to reflect and express myself in my own fashion on this day of rememberance and reflection...

You know, milestone anniversaries are a funny thing and I suppose each and every person has their own way of giving such events personal meaning. Take me for instance...on September 30th of this year I will have been married to the woman I (still) love for ten years. And what's more, she will having been putting up with the likes of ME for ten years, as well. In October of this year, I will have officially "gone DVD" for ten years (this blog of mine might never have been possible if I'd remained with VHS). But, of course, today being the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, we all may be taking a little time out of our lives to reflect on the past and what it's meant to our present and our future.

But I suppose it's impossible for me to talk about that tragic Tuesday ten years ago without telling you all where I was that morning. Where I was, was on my way to work in Greenwich Village when the subway train stopped at Christopher Street. The doors would not close and we were not moving for some time. Being the impatient person I can be sometimes, I decided to get out and walk the rest of the way to my office. As I made my way to Varrick Street I could see many people gathered in large masses on the street. I'm looking around and I can't account for a reason for any of this. I don't see a traffic accident, a fight breaking out, nothing. It actually doesn't occur to me to raise my head and look up for several minutes. When I do, I'm shocked to see that a huge plume of smoke is smouldering from the first tower hit by the plane at the World Trade Center. I should also clarify that from my perspective on the street, I could only see one tower, as the other one was directly behind it, hidden from my view. A short time later, I witnessed the great ball of fire that was the explosion of the second plane hitting the second tower. But I didn't know this yet. From my perspective, it appeared as if the explosion stemmed from the first building - a result of the ongoing fire, I imagined. By the time I'm in my office and listening to radio, I, like every other American that day, am learning what is happening to our beloved country. A short time later, I and many of my colleagues were standing in the conference room facing the buring towers. Try to imagine a roomful of architects discussing whether the steel structures would hold, when all of a sudden they come down. I believe my exact words were, "Holy shit, they're coming down!" By the time I left work after lunch, I ended up walking home in what seemed to be like a long exodus going north up the island of Manhattan. Once I reached home, my wife Beth (fiance at the time) held each other like we never had before. We were actually only about three weeks away from our wedding.

So now you know where I was and what I was doing. What I'd like to do now is give you a sense of what went through my mind at certain times and the feelings I was experiencing in terms of movies and how I allowed them to enter and affect my life. To begin with, when I saw that second explosion occur from the street, I swear on my son that the first thought that went through he head was that I had just witnessed a scene directly out of INDEPENDENCE DAY. Because downdown Manhattan was closed below 14th street for several days, I was home glued to the television like many others. When I could no longer take the stories and images anymore, I switched channels and found myself consoled by a broadcast of one of my favorite films, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (thank you Steven Spielberg, for saving me that night). When I could no longer take the confinements of my apartment any longer, I walked to the local movie theater to see THE OTHERS. Not an uplifting film, but a good, solid ghost story that helped take my mind off things. By that weekend, Beth and I went to see an outrageous French comedy called THE CLOSET. The following weekend, when we were back in the Hamptons, we went to laugh at the likes of SHREK on screen for the second time. Some time later, I even remember thinking about and anticipating EPISODE II of the STAR WARS saga due out next summer. I remember thinking to myself, "George Lucas, we need you now more than ever!" Yes, it's very safe to say that in the short time following 9/11, the movies helped to save my fragile state of mind.

But there's also something very specific that comes to my mind in terms of the motion picture industry and how movies were being handled and marketed in the wake of the 9/11 tragedies. Hollywood displayed a very rare (and very TEMPORARY) sensitivity to any form of violence and destruction on the screen and attempted to do what little they could to raise the spirits of the American people. They began by immediately pushing back the release of the Arnold Schwarzenegger terrorist-action vehicle COLLATERAL DAMAGE to Spring 2002. A scheduled airing of PASSENGER 57 on Cinemax was cancelled (for obvious reasons) and even an NBC-TV airing of BACK TO THE FUTURE was sensitive to the use of the word "terrorist" and actually deleted it from the film's dialogue. Frankly, I think that may have been taking things a little too far, but there you have it. Hollywood even shocked me by simultaneously re-releasing nearly every comedy that had already been on the screen during the entire Summer of 2001 because nothing can heal like the power of laughter on screen. Yes, it appeared that the insensitive money-whoring pigs who run Hollywood were actually capable of acting like human beings when national tragedy called for it.

Like I mentioned, though, it all didn't last long. Before we knew it, movie makers were up-and-running again in an effort to destroy as many of our American cities as box office tickets would allow. Whether through natural causes in THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, invading aliens in WAR OF THE WORLDS, giant robots in TRANSFORMERS, a videotaped monster in CLOVERFIELD and more recent forms of Earthly destruction like 2012 and BATTLE: LOS ANGELES. Shit, I haven't seen this much destruction on the screen since the Summer of 1998 when New York City was being clobbered by a giant coment, an asteroid the size of Texas and Godzilla himself! Obviously, nothing sells movie tickets to the common multiplex moron like good ol' fashioned self-destruction.

Now take a moment, if you will, to think back to the state and mood of our country immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. We can remember the enourmous amount of war films released only months after the attack. American heroes like John Wayne lit up the screen to fight for our country and our lives. Yes, there was violence and destruction on the screen, but it was targeted against our ENEMIES overseas and not our own cities here at home. Why is it so impossible to think that this patriotic film formula would not have worked on us today? I mean, if there HAD to be another John Rambo film in this new century, would it not have been truly exciting to see Stallone kick some royal Al Qaeda ass?? Maybe it's just me, but not only would I have paid good money to see this kind of sequel, but I would have cheered my fucking American ass off!

So now let me put forth this question - is it going to take another fatal tragedy on our beloved American soil before the powers-that-be of Hollywood once again wake up and realize that movies CAN be meant to serve a much higher purpose and responsibility than the usual Friday night crap box office intake? I've said this before and I'll gladly repeat it now...movies, when done with a certain degree of intelligence and sensitivity, have the power to reach us, teach us, and perhaps every so often, give us some positive meaning and inspiration in our lives. I've kept a pretty close eye on the big studio's releases over the past decade and I can't claim inspiration from anything! I'm sorry, but endless superhero sequels just aren't going to cut that sort of mustard!

What's the answer then? Are movies EVER going to be great again? Will they ever "save" our lives again? I honestly don't know what the answers are. Perhaps the answers can only depend on us, as human beings and how we choose to embrace the films out there today. If we choose NOT to invest our time, money and minds on crap, then perhaps Hollywood will get the message and start using their imaginations of originality again and treat their audiences with a little more respect and a little less insult. That's unrealistic, I'm sure, but the change can, at the very least, start with ME. It HAS started with me.

Finally, I'd like to dedicate this 9/11 post to my Uncle Steven (on my mother's side), who through luck or whatever good fortune or power he and others may choose to believe in, walked out of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and home to his beloved family.

And now, let's continue with the next film in my collection, and this time we'll all try to laugh a little...

DUEL

2011-09-10T17:16:00.007-04:00

(November 1971, U.S.)

For the benefit of those possible few that aren't widely familiar with Steven Spielberg's career, let's make this perfectly clear - JAWS was not his first film! Got that? Like many other struggling new film directors, the man had to start out at the bottomless pit of television. DUEL was his first film and it was made for the ABC-TV Movie of the Weekend. Look at the film today, though, and you'll likely agree it had all the spectacular makings for a theatrical feature, or at the very least as part of a double bill at the local drive-in movie theater. Actually, it was released as theatrical feature in Europe.

Let me ask you all a blunt question? Have you ever been driving on the highway and come into contact with a real asshole driver? Or have you ever acted like one yourself? My own answer to that is 'yes' on both accounts? I mean, come on, even the best of us can get a little impatient and angered on the road, and as a result we just might piss somebody off. It can happen. However, you don't want what happens to mild-mannered Los Angeles salesman David Mann (played by Dennis Weaver) to happen to you on the road...ever! All HE did was encounter a grimy and rusty Peterbilt 281 tanker truck, traveling slower than the speed limit and expelling thick plumes of sooty diesel exhaust. Mann passes the unsightly truck, which promptly roars past him and slows down. David passes the truck a second time and is startled when it suddenly issues a long air horn blast. In short, the truck driver (a truck driver that we, the viewer, NEVER get to see!) gets awfully pissed and decides that David will now be his new target in a game, or "duel" of cat-and-mouse wits on the road. Wits will eventually evolve into many attempts of murder as the "Goliath" truck overpowers the "David" (hey, did you get that one, too?) small, red Plymouth Valiant. On paper, the premise may sound a bit mild, but when you watch the film and incredible fear involved in the life of this ordinary man, you can feel the terror happening.

Think back now to the monsterous moments of Spielberg's films when the leviathan of the great white shark in JAWS (1975) stalked it's prey, or when the man-made dinosaurs did the same in JURASSIC PARK (1993). Now consider that the menacing truck in DUEL was the prerequisite to all of that. The monster can come in many forms. For us, the reality of the unstable driver may be a lot more reality to bear than the shark or the dinosaur.

Favorite line or dialogue:

David Mann: "Come on you miserable fat-head, get that fat-ass truck outta my way!"

(I know just how he feels!)

DUCK SOUP

2011-09-09T18:20:00.015-04:00

(November 1933, U.S.)

It's funny how time can be kind to a film. Considered a classic now and my personal favorite Marx Brothers film of their entire career, DUCK SOUP was a considered a box office and critical disappointment back in 1933. I can't possibly imagine why. The outrageous dialogue and anarchy of Groucho, Chico and Harpo (Zeppo was just simply NOT funny!) must have been a comic miracle during the time of the Great Depression when American desperately needed to laugh their troubles away for a time. For my own tastes, this is the film that has the most memorable quotes and it's one of the few where I don't have to sit through Harpo playing the harp. Remember, I'm not to keen on musicals in general.

Besides being a classic comedy, DUCK SOUP is considered to be an anti-war film of its time in which wealthy Mrs. Teasdale (played by Margaret Dumont) insists that Rufus T. Firefly (played by Groucho) be appointed leader of the small, bankrupt country of Freedonia before she will continue to provide any more financial assistance. Meanwhile, neighboring Sylvania is attempting to take over the country. Sylvanian ambassador Trentino (played by Louis Calhern) tries to foment a revolution and attempts to dig up dirt on Firefly by sending in kooky spies Chicolini (played by Chico) and Pinky (played by Harpo). As neighboring countries at odds with each other, they will surely inevitably go to war, which I suppose is exactly the point in getting the valid anti-war message across to audiences. War is, in fact, declared and everyone is overcome by "war frenzy", breaking into outrageous song and dance. The message at the time clearly was that war was so ridiculous that it was cause enough to sing, "We go to war!" and play music on the helmets of soldiers. In 1933, the mesaage just might have worked because there were many who thought the United States should not have been involved in World War I. The film would have been ineffective after World War II, though, as America was justifyably gung-ho to go to war against Japan. Regardless, at the time only the legendary Marx Brothers could have pulled it off. They did, in my opinion.

Let's talk about that great "mirror scene" for a moment. Groucho and Harpo, dressed exactly the same, pretend to be each other's reflection in a missing mirror, matching each other's every move — including absurd ones that begin out of sight — to near perfection. In one particularly surreal moment, the two men swap positions, and thus the idea of which is a reflection of the other. It's been copied many times, from Bugs Bunny to I LOVE LUCY (with Harpo as a guest star, I might add).

Rufus T. Firefly: "Not that I care, but where is your husband?"
Mrs. Teasdale: "Why, he's dead."
Firefly: "I bet he's just using that as an excuse."
Teasdale: "I was with him to the very end."
Firefly: "No wonder he passed away."
Teasdale: "I held him in my arms and kissed him."
Firefly: "Oh, I see, then it was murder. Will you marry me? Did he leave you any money? Answer the second question first."
Teasdale: "He left me his entire fortune."
Firefly: "Is that so? Can't you see what I'm trying to tell you? I love you!"

DR. STRANGELOVE OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB

2011-09-07T22:17:00.021-04:00

(January 1964, U.S.)

Stanley Kubrick is my favorite film director of all time. I think I've been pretty clear about that in the past. DR. STRANGELOVE is one of those rare films that I'm, frankly, very much in love with. One of those rare films I couldn't live without if I were stranded on a desert island. One of those rare films that I have so much to say about, that I find myself almost stuck with how to begin or what to actually say. But, rest assured, I eventually shut up, wise up and speak up so I can effectively express myself the way I seek to with my blogs (that's why we're both here!).

This was a film I discovered by accident on television when I was a teenager and just starting to learn about Kubrick's career as well as the appreciation for black and white classic films. Let's begin with a question that requires a little imagination - what must it have been like to try and make a black comedy film which satirized the American nuclear scare during the early 1960s that was dominated by the threat of the Cold War? Imagine what it must have seemed like to pitch that idea to Columbia Pictures. My only possible answer to all of this is, "Hey, it's fucking Stanley Kubrick! Anything's possible!" The story (if you're really THAT clueless!) concerns the very unhinged United States Air Force general Jack Ripper (played by Sterling Hayden) who orders a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Why? Because he's deluded himself into thinking that a secret Communist plot of introducing a foreign substance into the drinking water and into his "precious bodily fluids" is responsible for his impotence and possibly his tendency toward homosexuality (yes, that's right - the world is about to end because a potential gay man can't get it up!). It also follows the President of the United States (played by Peter Sellers), his advisors, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a Royal Air Force (RAF) officer as they try to recall the bombers to prevent a nuclear apocalypse. It also separately follows the crew of one B-52 bomber as they try to ultimately deliver their nuclear payload against their target in Russia. Sounds pretty grim and frightening, right? Well, fear not because it's funny, funny, funny! It's funny dialogue that never gets boring and never disappoints. It's funny because Peter Sellers famously plays three roles effectively (the President of the United States, the Royal Air Force exchange officer and the ever-crazy Dr. Strangelove himself!) and you can't decide which character is more loony that the other. It's funny because George C. Scott as the gung-ho, "let's kill em' all!" General Buck Turgidson is in his best role that easily surpasses PATTON (1970). It's funny because the above-metnioned B-52 aircraft commander Major T. J. "King" Kong (played by Slim Pickens) is just as gung-ho crazy as Turgidson whose final act before the world ends is riding the missle striking Russia like a wild bronco. Now THAT'S what I call a true American patriot! The film's final montage of nuclear detonations across the world, accompanied by Vera Lynn's recording of "We'll Meet Again" is not quite as funny as the rest of the film, but a grim and harsh reminder of what we were and what we're still capable of doing to this planet of ours.

During the filming of DR. STRANGELOVE, Kubrick learned that another film, FAIL-SAFE (1964), with a similar theme, was being produced. Although Sidney Lumet's film was to be an ultra-realistic thriller, he feared that its plot resemblance would damage his film's box office potential, especially if it were released first. Kubrick decided to throw a legal wrench into the other film's production gears and it worked, too. FAIL-SAFE opened eight months behind DR. STRANGELOVE, to critical acclaim but (unfortunately) mediocre ticket sales. Almost reminds me of the battle of asteroid films between two studios during the Summer of 1998 (DEEP IMPACT and ARMAGEDDON).

When I was a freshman in college, I took a class called History After 1945. It was an excellent class that often focussed on media and pop culture as well as political and historical events. One night, the professor showed us DR. STRANGELOVE during the period of discussion that involved the Cold War. When it was over, the essay question was simply, "Why did I show this film?" Well, d-u-u-h-h! You'll be happy to know I got an A (minus) on the paper (pat on my back!)

DR. STRANGELOVE is my second favorite Stanley Kubrick film. We still haven't gotten to my favorite yet. Stay with me to find out...

Favorite line or dialogue:

President Merkin Muffley (to Soviet Premier Kissoff): "Hello?...Uh...Hello D- uh hello Dmitri? Listen uh uh I can't hear too well. Do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?...Oh-ho, that's much better...yeah...huh...yes...Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri...Clear and plain and coming through fine...I'm coming through fine, too, eh?...Good, then...well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine...Good...Well, it's good that you're fine and...and I'm fine...I agree with you, it's great to be fine...a-ha-ha-ha-ha...Now then, Dmitri, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Bomb...The Bomb, Dmitri...The hydrogen bomb!...Well now, what happened is...ahm...one of our base commanders, he had a sort of...well, he went a little funny in the head...you know...just a little...funny. And, ah...he went and did a silly thing...Well, I'll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes...to attack your country...Ah...Well, let me finish, Dmitri...Let me finish, Dmitri...Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?...Can you imagine how I feel about it, Dmitri?... Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello?...Of course I like to speak to you!...Of course I like to say hello!...Not now, but anytime, Dmitri. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened...It's a friendly call. Of course it's a friendly call...Listen, if it wasn't friendly...you probably wouldn't have even got it...They will not reach their targets for at least another hour...I am...I am positive, Dmitri...Listen, I've been all over this with your ambassador. It is not a trick...Well, I'll tell you. We'd like to give your air staff a complete run-down on the targets, the flight plans, and the defensive systems of the planes...Yes! I mean i-i-i-if we're unable to recall the planes, then...I'd say that, ah...well, ah...we're just gonna have to help you destroy them, Dmitri...I know they're our boys...All right, well listen now. Who should we call?...Who should we call, Dmitri? The...wha-whe, the People...you, sorry, you faded away there...The People's Central Air Defense Headquarters...Where is that, Dmitri?...In Omsk...Right...Yes...Oh, you'll call them first, will you?...Uh-huh...Listen, do you happen to have the phone number on you, Dmitri?...Whe-ah, what? I see, just ask for Omsk information...Ah-ah-eh-uhm-hm...I'm sorry, too, Dmitri...I'm very sorry...All right, you're sorrier than I am, but I am as sorry as well...I am as sorry as you are, Dmitri! Don't say that you're more sorry than I am, because I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are...So we're both sorry, all right?...All right".

DR. NO

2011-09-07T08:34:00.019-04:00

(October 1962, U.S.)

Your personal interpretation of the very first James Bond film ever, DR. NO, may depend entirely on what generation you're from. Perhaps you're old enough to have seen the first film on screen back in 1962 and then all the others that followed in their theatrical release order. If that's the case, then you got to witness the character's development over time. However, if you're in my age bracket (late thirties to early forties), you very likely got your first taste of James Bond on screen in the 1970s in the form of Roger Moore and perhaps managed to catch GOLDFINGER or THUNDERBALL on the ABC Sunday Night Movie. That being the case, it's a considerably different experience to go back to the first Bond film and see Sean Connery bring the character to life for the first time.

If you were to watch DR. NO, CASINO ROYALE or even THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, it would be very easy to see that author Ian Flemming had a much different idea of James Bond in mind that doesn't even come close to the silly campiness displayed in many other films by men like Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan. Connery's very first portrayel of James Bond is a much tougher, grittier and cold-hearted spy, and I might also add, a much faster talker. Watch the film and you'll what I'm talking about; at times, the man is speaking at a hundred miles an hour. But I suppose like any other film franchise, a character like his needs a little time to be well seasoned.

The film, too, is just getting started and the stories, too, need time for seasoning. In this film, James Bond is sent to Jamaica on an investigation into the death of a fellow British agent. The murder trail leads him to the underground base of the villian Dr. No (played fiendishly by Joesph Wiseman), who is plotting to disrupt an early American manned space launch with a radio beam weapon. Not a terribly exciting plot and there are no over-the-top gadgets or cars to marvel at. For it introduction, DR. NO serves more to introduce us to the English gentleman spy who is licensed to kill and to learn what exactly makes the man tick. We know from many films of the future that he kills anyone, anytime without hesitation and that monogomy doesn't exactly work out for him. In fact, there's a moment in DR. NO when Honey Ryder asks Bond if he has a woman of his own. Just take a long look at Bond's face as he hesitates at the question and ultimately never answers it.

Now let's take a moment to talk about Honey Ryder (played by the sultry Ursula Andrews), shall we? Bond fans and even Bond historians (is there really such a thing??) have often called her the best "Bond girl" ever. Is she really? Well, I suppose that would depend on what you're personally grading her on. If we're talking about character strength, personality and performance, then my answer is definitely "no". On the other hand, if we're talking about the hottest piece of "Bond girl" ass you've ever seen on screen, then I have to definitely give Honey Ryder two big thumbs way up! Truth be told, I've never really had a favorite "Bond girl". Most of them (even the more independent, intelligent ones) seem to follow the same persistent formula. I can tell you that I consider Denise Richards in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (1999) the absolute WORST "Bond girl" of the entire film franchise! Most people would agree with me.

As a quintessential "Bond villian", I have to say that Dr. No rates as one of the best I've ever seen in the franchise. He's cunning, diabolical and evil without being entirely over-the-top in his personality and mannerism. I would call him the silent-but-deadly type, which I consider to be a more frightening character that the villian who's constantly shooting off his mouth and laughing like some stereotypical "mad scientist" or something. Many other Bond fans would likely tell you that Goldfinger is the best "Bond villian", but maybe that's simply because he says the best line to come from a villian, which is, "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!" Who knows.

Favorite line or dialogue:

James Bond: " I admire your courage, Miss...?"
Sylvia Trench: " Trench. Sylvia Trench. I admire your luck, Mr...?"
James: "Bond. James Bond."

And with those immortal words, a film legend is born...

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1941)

2011-09-05T16:43:00.011-04:00

(August 1941, U.S.)

One of the great disadvantages of watching three versions of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE in a row and having never read the original work by Robert Louis Stevenson is that you can never be totally sure of the author's original intention for the characteristics of Mr. Hyde. Was he meant to be a physically grotesque monster as portrayed in some film versions or was the physical transformation meant to be just subtle enough to make its philosophical point of man's inner conflict of good versus evil? Well, it's the latter point that Spencer Tracy expresses as Mr. Hyde. The physical tranformation in this 1941 version are actually no more than thicker hair and eyebrows, bigger eyes and a wider grin.

It's Spencer Tracy, though, that truly attracts one to this version of the story. He's a legendary actor that brings a strong sense of drama to the roles that call for it, and that dramatic passion comes through as Dr. Henry Jekyll. And while not particularly frightening as Mr. Hyde, that same passion comes through when his evil side is revealed and he murders his victims, dance hall girl Ivy and his would-be father in-law when provoked by rage. While Ingrid Bergman is suitably cast as Ivy, it's a role that could just as easily be as good or as bad as anything else she's done. In other words, it's NOT CASABLANCA! Lana Turner as Jekyll's fiance is, frankly, quite forgettable.

Now I have to give a director like Victor Flemming tremendous credit here. After having directed both THE WIZARD OF OZ and GONE WITH THE WIND (both released in 1939), you'd think he'd have taken a long hiatus just to recover from that kind of film making stress. Instead, he gives us a very credible film version of a great literary classic. It's an understandably light-hearted film, even for it's scary premise. This, however, is far from being a horror film. In fact, given a few very mild edits, it could almost pass for a family film...almost.

Well, I have to say that after three versions in a row of this film, I'm quite jekyll'd out of my hyde!

(Okay, that was bad. Sorry.)

Favorite line or dialogue:

Dinner Guest: "But, but, but aren't you a bit presumptuous in assuming that there's evil in all men?"
Dr. Jekyll: "Oh, but isn't that true? Wouldn't we be hypocrites if we didn't admit that? After all, we've all had thoughts that we, uh, didn't want published or shouted out loud and we certainly have had desires that are not confined to a drawing room. Why, as Christians, we admit that man is created weal. That's a perfectly honest problem. Why don't we face it?"

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1932)

2011-09-02T08:11:00.007-04:00

(December 1931, U.S.)

By the time 1932 rolls around, the so-called "talkie" is all the rage and so is the monster movie. Universal Pictures commands the reigns with hits like DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN, THE MUMMY and THE INVISIBLE MAN. So naturally, Paramount Pictures would likely compete with their latest version of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE; this time with Frederic March playing the good (and bad) doctor.

By now, this is the EIGHTH version of Robert Louis Stevenson's famed novel to come to the screen. So perhaps I won't even bother going into the plot because I think I can safely assume you're all familiar, right? Instead, with this version, what I'll try to do is focus more on the psychology and philosophy behind its premise of man's dual persona of decent morality and the uninhibited desire to express his dark and ugly side. From the beginning, Dr. Henry Jekyll (pronounced "Jeekyll" for some mysterious reason in this version - don't know why) is very clear on his theories and philosophies of man's dual or "split" personality and I have to say that it's almost conspiracy-like in the way that all those around him refuse to believe such propositions of man's being. The decent man that we know Dr. Jekyll to be is conflicted with not only the need to prove those around him wrong, but to also reject the lust he feels towards women of less desirability simple because it's the decent thing to do (or not do) or as those around him put it, "It isn't done." Well, once he's transformed into Mr. Hyde, not only is it DONE, but you can almost condone the mischief and mayhem he cause because it's a rage against the moral machine of conformity that seeks to dominate his existence.

There are two particular works of the camera that I'd like to focus on for a moment and they both involve the "disolve" shot. The first one disolves from Dr. Jekyll's fiance Muriel and stays there for a long moment into the next scene, reminding the audience that Dr. Jekyll is constantaly bound to the decent moral complexities of love, marriage and honor. The second one disolves from the cheap dance hall girl Ivy and stays there for the same moment into the next scene to remind us that Jekyll is also a man conflicting with the hidden lustful desires he has for this girl and can only express when he's transformed into Mr. Hyde. It's imagery that easily captures the classic conflict of good versus evil within our souls.

As for the physical monster that is Mr. Hyde, it's difficult to judge just how scary he is. In my opinion, he looks like a cross between Lon Channey Jr. in THE WOLFMAN (1941) and the tasmanian devil from CREEPSHOW (1982). That, of course, is a scary looking monster, but it's easy to get past it because Mr. Hyde seems to come off as more of a comical mischief-maker rather than a frightening murder (but murder he does!). In watching Frederic March play Mr. Hyde, you can almost presume that Jim Carrey studied this role when he prepared to play his role in THE MASK (1994).

Favorite line or dialogue:

Mr. Hyde: "Perhaps you prefer a gentleman. One of those fine-mannered and honorable gentlemen. Those panting hypocrites who like your legs but talk about your garters."

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1920)

2011-08-21T15:50:00.017-04:00

(March 1920, U.S.)

Just how many times has Robert Louis Stevenson's famous novel been adapted to the screen, stage, television and even a '90's Broadway musical? Too many, probably; too many for me to have seen all of them. So, like DRACULA, I had the challenging task of picking and choosing which ones best speak to me as effective representatives of the story's original terrifying concept and intentions. So, keeping that in mind, let's begin with this silent black and white classic (there were three other silent version before this one, but I've never seen them. I don't even know if they still exist) starring John Barrymore (Drew's grandfather) as the famed doctor.

This legendary story of split personality, shows us Dr. Henry Jekyll, a kind and charitable man who believes that everyone has two sides, one good and one evil. Creating a powerful potion, his personalities are split and he's transformed into Mr. Hyde. That's when abbsolute havoc begins. It's important to note that physical characteristics are particularly key to this film and it's interesting to note that the early part of Dr. Jekyll's initial transformation into Mr. Hyde was achieved with no makeup, instead relying solely on Barrymore's artistic ability to effectively contort his face when necessary.

As a silent film, there is an odd, yet very effective creepiness that comes with not only the grainy black and white picture, but also the menacing organ music that accompanies it. Stare long and hard at Jekyll's transformed physical state as Mr. Hyde and dare to tell me you don't experience just a little bit of the so-called "hee-bee-jee-bees". If nothing else, Hyde's cone-shaped head (a physical characteristic I haven't seen in any other versions) will make you shiver just a bit. Only be sure you're watching this late at night with all the lights out. Anyway, it's for all these reasons that I've chosen this 1920 silent classic as my favorite film version of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE. Not that there aren't more (two, to be exact) to come...

Favorite line or dialogue:

Sir George Carew: "A man cannot destroy the savage in him by denying its impulses. The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it."

DRESSED TO KILL

2011-08-17T13:15:00.008-04:00

(June 1946, U.S.)

Before all of you Brian DePalma fans start losing your minds with excitement, let me be clear and tell that this is NOT his 1980 horror thriller. While I like many of DePalma's films, his DRESSED TO KILL did not do very much for me. I enjoy it right up until Angie Dickinson's famous elevator slashing sequence. After that, the acting goes way down hill and ruins the film. No, what I'm discussing here is a classic black and white Sherlock Holmes film of the same name. It was the last in a long series of films that starred Basil Rathbone as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Doctor Watson. It's a film that I bought on a DVD containing three of the post popular classic films in this series. These films (or most of them) are considered public domain films (look that up), so the picture quality isn't exactly up to today's standards. That's okay, though. I simply turn out the lights and imagine that I'm watching them on late night television back in the 1970s or something, before the words, "digitally remastered" ever existed.

So, in this film, three cheap music boxes (each one playing a subtly different version of the tune "The Swagman") manufactured by prison inmates, are sold at a local auction house. However, a rather sophisticated (and equally dangerous) criminal gang is determined to steal and recover all three of these worthless boxes, even if it means committing murder (which they do). You see, combined tunes of all three boxes is actually a secret code to reveal the location of valuable counterfeit printing plates. The great Sherlock Holmes uses his talented powers of observation and deduction to recover the music boxes and crack the secret code contained in the tune before the gang can get what they want. Basically, the good guys win, the bad guys lose and crime doesn't pay in the end.

Admittedly, I've never read any of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original Sherlock Holmes stories. However, the exposure I had to the character as a kid and young adult always featured him as the proper, sophisticated English gentleman, complete with the cliche cap and pipe. By this tradition, Basil Rathbone pulls it off perfectly. This traditional character, in fact, made it rather difficult for me to accept Robert Downy Jr's portrayel of Holmes as a rough and rugged action hero type in the 2009 film version. There's also an edge to Rathbone's manner that clearly defines his intelligence and experience. In other words, I don't think I'd want to match wits with this guy. I couldn't stand the humiliation. Regarding Doctor Watson, I can't say that I know too much about what the original character is supposed to be like. I can tell you that Nigel Bruce persistently plays him as a bit of a goofball who can't seem to do anything right...as a dectective, anyway.

Once again, I apologize to any disappointment I may have brought to all Brian DePalma fans.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Doctor Watson (raises window shade and lets in sunlight): "I say, Holmes..."
Sherlock Holmes: "What?"
Watson: "It's morning."
Holmes: "Allow me to congratulate you on a brilliant deduction."

DRACULA (1992)

2011-08-14T15:39:00.013-04:00

(November 1992, U.S.)

By the time 1992 rolls around and you've seen Francis Ford Coppola's version of the legendary vampire, you're bound to reach one of several conclusions; one is that you're sick to death of Dracula and vampires in general (but maybe that's just me). Two is that even despite all of his style, grace, charm and gothic horror, in the end Dracula may not be much more than a really pissed-off grieving widower (at least that's how actor Gary Oldman seems to portray him in this film). Third is that based on the many great computer-generated effects and make-up effects that were used in this version, Coppola just may have been capable of directing the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy had Peter Jackson not taken it on.

But I'm clearly starting things off here on a negative vibe and you're all likely to think I don't like this version of DRACULA. Clearly, I do or it wouldn't be a part of my film collection, right? No, what I'm really saying is that by this version, I'm of the opinion that a film based on Bram Stoker's original story has taken itself to its maximum capabilities based not only on the modern special effects, but also in the performances of its stars. Gary Oldman not only delivers the romantic charm needed for the character, but the intense horror that's absolutely essential to any story of Dracula. Keeanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker and Wynona Ryder as Mina (whom, by the way, Dracula consideres a reincarnated version of his long lost love, Elisabeta) are just fine, in that I've never truly considered them the most important characters of the story. The real addictive performance in this film is Anthony Hopkins. His rather sick, twisted sense of dramatic humor, in my opinion, makes him the one and only actor whom I feel could possibly portray Professor Abraham Van Helsing.

The man responsible for two GODFATHER films and APOCALYPSE NOW brings the old spook story alive. Dracula is a restless spirit who's been condemned for too many years to interment in crappy, badly acted movies. This luscious film version restores the creature's nobility, giving him his long-needed peace. It's conceptual and visual energy are absolutely fascinating to watch.

So, my friends, after having watched three DRACULA films in a row and also having also never seen any other vampire film since, I've reached this additional and unavoidable conclusion: the character of DRACULA, like William Shakespeare's Hamlet, is one of those literary characters whose story will likely be told on film again, again and again, whether we like it or not. It's just inevitable that Hollywood has nothing better to do than recycle previously-used material as many times as possible. That sucks, doesn't it? A real pain in the neck, isn't it?

Okay, I'm through with bad punning! But let me conclude by telling you that we will not be discussing any more vampire films until we've reached the letter 'N' in my film collection. Have you guessed what it is yet?

Favorite line or dialgoue:

Count Dracula (having just lost his beloved Elisabeta): "Is this my reward for defending God's church?"
Priest: "Sacrilege!"
Dracula: "I renounce God! I shall rise from my own death to avenge hers with all the powers of darkness!"

DRACULA (1979)

2011-08-11T08:37:00.012-04:00

(July 1979, U.S.)

There's somethiing very interesting to note about the year 1979 in that in addition to this version of DRACULA on screen, there was also Werner Herzog's retelling of NOSFERATU and the comic Dracula spoof, LOVE AT FIRST BITE. On television, there was an ABC-TV movie-of-the-week called VAMPIRE and on CBS-TV there a two-part mini-series of Stephen King's SALEM'S LOT. Yes, it's very safe to say that 1979 was, indeed, the year of the vampire!

Ask anyone what their favorite film version of Bram Stoker's legendary novel is and they're likely to either tell you it's the 1931 Bela Lugosi version or F. W. Murnau's 1922 silent classic. Since I'm often in the minority category when it comes to films, I have to be honest and tell you that it's this 1979 version with Frank Langella as the "Count" that always grabs my attention above all others. Perhaps it has to do more with my own personal memories from when I was a kid of just twelve. No, my parents wouldn't let me see this film (or any other horror film, for that matter), but it seemed that I was being surrounded by mentions of Dracula at every end. Even two years prior, I can remember seeing TV commercials about DRACULA on Broadway (also starring Langella). And as mentioned above, by the time Summer of 1979 rolled around, there were vampires coming from all sides of popular culture.

But take a real close look at this version of DRACULA and study Langella's performance. Unlike Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, his portrayel here has a certain degree of style, grace, elegance and smoothness that other actors, in my opinion, have not given the classic character. The film is a triumph of performance, art direction and mood over materials that can lend themselves so easily to overblown self-satire. So many other portrayels of Dracula have somehow managed to lose the tragic origins of the character among the stereotypical gravestones, fangs and all the black cloaks. Langella's Dracula restores the character to the purity of its first film appearances, even before Lugosi. There's even a moment when he's about to "take" Lucy for the first time where he enters her room sporting a large collar and open shirt revealing much of his chest hair. In short, he strongly resembles John Travolta in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER (1977), which was also directed by John Badham (coincidence??).

While generally faithful to Stoker's original story, this version strays in several directions. Most notable is the fact that the characters of Mina and Lucy have been switched (why, I have no fucking clue!). The film also takes place at the early part of the 20th century when electricity and automobiles were already invented. It's actually strange to be watching a story of Dracula and hear one of it's character's say, "I'll get the car." Dracula's death is also reinvented as he is destroyed by blazing sunlight rather than the tradition wooden stake or beheading. I should also point out that contrary to popular vampire lore, the undead Mina mysteriously casts a reflection in a pool of water. But I suppose that's what a truly good remake is; a film that's not afraid to take some chances and change some things.

Let me end with a rather amusing personal story about this film, though it actually has nothing to do with me. It's about my grandfather when I was kid. One of his leisurely activities was go to a movie theater and take a very long nap, sometimes for as long as two or three screenings a film. The man was Egyptian and had almost no concept of American popular culture so very often he wasn't even aware of what movie he had just paid admission to nap by. So one day he innocently goes to a movie theater completely unaware that he's just bought a ticket for DRACULA. Before he could actually fall asleep, he got a small taste of the gory horror and was, needless to say, horrified and mortified beyond words. The poor man left the theater and never got his afternoon nap that day. I can still remember him telling us this story and the whole family laughing at his misfortune. I can still remember him saying, "Dra-koo-la" in his thick Egyptian accent. Sorry, Grandpa!

So, anyway, now you know...the 1979 Frank Langella version is my favorite film of DRACULA!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Count Dracula: "You fools! Do you think with your crosses and your wafers you can destroy me? Me! You do not know how many men have come against me. I am the king of my kind! You have accomplished nothing, Van Helsing. Time is on my side. In a century, when you are dust, I shall wake and call Lucy, my queen from her grave. I have in my time had many brides, Mr. Harker. But I shall set Lucy above them all."

DRACULA (1931)

2011-08-09T13:04:00.008-04:00

(February 1931, U.S.)

The character of Bram Stoker's character Dracula has been adapted and immortalized on film more times than I care to count. However, believe it or not, only a small handful of them are based on Stoker's original piece of literature. The legendary "Count" has been played by the likes of Max Schreck, Christopher Lee, Jack Palance, Frank Langella, Gary Oldman, and of course, Bela Lugosi. Although not my personal favorite, Lugosi is considered the quintessential vampire (must be that Hungarian accent). Tod Browning's 1931 version is also the film that ushered in the age of the Universal monster movies. If you ever grew up watching late night TV horror such as FRIGHT NIGHT or CHILLER THEATER, then you know what I'm talking about. Believe it or not, it wasn't until Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 version was released that I went out and rented a VHS copy of the Lugosi version and saw the entire film for the first time. While it didn't exactly have the good acting and drama that, say, a James Whale-directed monster film might have had, it was still a great classic that had to be seen.

I won't go into storyline and plot because I'm presuming anyone reading this blog would consider themselves someone who appreciates film...and if you can claim that, then you've surely seen a Dracula film or two in your lifetime. What is surely most noteworthy about the 1931 version is not only Lugosi's style and charm, but also the gothic creepiness that only black and white cinematography can give the story. But it's not to say that all this gothic horror is not without its share of fun. The character of Renfield is played with rather twisted humor and devilishness by Dwight Frye; a repeat performer in more than a few Universal horror films. To make this version of DRACULA truly special, though, you have to fully appreciate the level of nightmarish horror it must have bestowed on innocent movie audiences in 1931. At it's premiere, newspapers reported that members of the audience fainted in shock at the horror they were watching on screen; horror that would surely seem completely lame today, but like I said, you have to use your imagination and appreciation when watching this film, as with any classic film. Oh, and it doesn't hurt if you have the film on DVD and you watch it on a 42" flat screen TV. Ain't nothing like glorious black and white on a TV like that!

As mentioned above, there are many film versions of DRACULA. For myself, the task of picking and choosing exactly which versions were good enough to be in my collection was surely a challanging one. So stick with me, people, and you'll find out which ones made the cut...

Favorite line or dialogue:

Count Dracula: "Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."

DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS

2011-08-09T09:17:00.010-04:00

(January 1986, U.S.)

As a general rule, I tend to stay away from American remakes of foreign films (the original play was first adapted back in 1932 by French film maker Jean Renoir). Rest assured, though, that when I first saw DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS back in 1986, I had no idea it was such a film. To be honest, I only found out recently, which should give you some idea of how long it's been since I've watched this film. So I'm afraid I'll just have to plead ignorance on this one.

Another thing I'll mention right away is that I think the Talking Heads' "Once in a Lifetime" is one of the silliest songs I've ever heard. The fact that this film begins with that song during the opening credits should immediately tell you that you're in for something very silly. The film is about rich and dysfunctional couple David and Barbara Whiteman (played by Richard Dreyfuss and Bette Midler) who save the life of suicidal bum, Jerry Baskin (played by Nick Nolte). In a way, the entire premise of the story thrives on cliche and predictability. Jerry's presence in the lives of these people will, predictably, not only turn the household more upside down than it already is, but will also bring about his rather twisted sense of wisdom and free-spiritedness that they all desperately require in their lives. You've probably also seen the cliche in films that the filthy rich are spoiled, clueless, pathetic morons. The film does not disappoint on that level either because they ARE! How many people do YOU know (rich or not) who get a psychiatrist for their fucking dog?? And is it just me, or do films only tend to portray rich Americans living in only Beverly Hills, New York City, the Hamptons and perhaps parts of Florida? That's only three out of fifty states. That should give you some idea of our economic status in the rest of the country...on film, anyway.

Richard Dreyfuss has always been one of my favorite actors. Serious, dramatic roles in films like JAWS (1975) and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (1977) are unforgettable. His comedic performances in STAKEOUT (1987), WHAT ABOUT BOB? (1991) and this film are priceless. There's almost nobody else I can picture frantically running around a huge house yelling, "Call 911, call 911!"

One last comment...question really; would somebody who grew up during the 1980s PLEASE tell me what the big craze about Mike the dog was all about? Yes, he had some funny moments in this film, but he hardly achieved any legendary canine status that would make him another Toto, Lassie or even Benji. I don't get it.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Daniel "White Feather": "My Indian name is Na-Na-Ta-Che."
Dave Whiteman: "Na-Na-Ta-Che-Ta?"
Daniel: "Yeah, it means, "He who lost his American Express card and don't give a fuck"."

DOUBLE INDEMNITY

2011-08-07T15:09:00.014-04:00

(September 1944, U.S.)

When I was a kid in the 1970s, one of the local TV channels was still airing reruns of MY THREE SONS. I didn't care for the show too much and I thought actor Fred MacMurrary was one of the biggest dorks I'd ever seen. Never would I have imagined that decades earlier he'd played a "not very nice" guy in what I consider to be one of the greatest American film noir classics of all time, Billy Wilder's DOUBLE INDEMNITY. Barbara Stanwyck portrays perhaps THE quintessential representative of the femme fatale (even in her badly chosen blonde wig), namely the kind of woman you want to fuck as soon as you meet her and the same kind of woman who will ultimately fuck you (and not in a good way!) in the end.

Walter Neff (played by MacMurray), a seemingly innocent and perhaps even dull insurance salesman first meets the sultry Phyllis Dietrichson (played by Stanwyck) during a routine house call to renew an automobile insurance policy for her husband. A flirtation develops, at least until Phyllis asks how she could take out an accident insurance policy on her husband's life without his knowing it. Neff realizes she's contemplating his murder, and he wants no part of it...not for the moment, anyway. The term "double indemnity", by the way, refers to a clause in certain life insurance policies that doubles the payout in cases when death is caused by accidental means. This is, of course, more than tempting for two "not so very nice" people who ultimately want to plot the murder of the woman's husband and collect on his insurance. Their carefully-planned scheme has left nothing to chance and seems to go off without a hitch when they finally execute it. Only problem is they have an insurance claims adjuster named Keyes (played by the great Edward G. Robinson) on their ass whose job is to find phony claims, and he's definitely one stubborn, persistent son of a bitch! But even stubborness may not prevail because the guilty person is standing in front of Keyes the whole time and he's just too close (to Neff) to realize it. But if you've watched enough film noir in your time, you can often expect that the scheming couple will likely double-cross each other in the end and both end up dead. In the end, crime doesn't pay but you almost wish it did because you've come to enjoy the chemistry, heat and murderous antics between a couple who are "not so nice" to watch on film.

DOUBLE INDEMNITY is cited as a paradigmatic film noir and as having set the standard for the films that followed in that same genre. Its black and white photography helps to develop the noir style of sharp-edged shadows and shots, strange angles and lonely Edward Hopper-type settings.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Phyllis Dietrichson: "Mr. Neff, why don't you drop by tomorrow evening around 8:30. He'll be in then."
Walter Neff: "Who?"
Phyllis: "My husband. You were anxious to talk to HIM, weren't you?"
Walter: "Yeah, I was. But, uh, I'm sorta getting over the idea if you know what I mean."
Phyllis: "There's a speed limit in this state, Mr. Neff; forty-five miles an hour."
Walter: "How fast was I going, Officer?"
Phyllis: "I'd say around ninety."
Walter: "Suppose you get down off your motorcycle and give me a ticket?"
Phyllis: "Suppose I let you off with a warning this time?"
Walter: "Suppose it doesn't take?"
Phyllis: "Suppose I have to whack you over the knuckles?"
Walter: "Suppose I bust out crying and put my head on your shoulder?"
Phyllis: "Suppose you try putting it on my HUSBAND'S shoulder?"
Walter: "That tears it."

This kind of dialogue by 1940's standards would probably have been considered a strong form of sexual foreplay. You see - even THEN, there was plently of fucking on film, only in much more subtle forms.

DO THE RIGHT THING

2011-08-05T13:22:00.020-04:00

(June 1989, U.S.)

I suppose I'll start out by making one thing very plain, and that's this - twenty years ago, if you'd asked me what my single favorite film of the 1980s was, I'd have told you DO THE RIGHT THING. Ten years ago, if you'd asked me what my single favorite film of the 1980s was, I'd have told you DO THE RIGHT THING. And if you came up to me on the street tomorrow and asked me, "Hey, Eric, what's your single favorite film of the 1980s?", I'd still tell you "DO THE RIGHT THING"...and that's the truth, Ruth (that was corny, but effective!)!

If you know even just a little bit about Spike Lee's third film, then you know there's lots to talk about. First, take it's release into consideration; a small slice-of-Brooklyn-life film released during a summer dominated by the likes of Batman, Indiana Jones, James Bond and Star Trek. How it ever even got noticed during such a mix of blockbuster material is beyond me. On a more personal level, it was not an easy film for me to take it because it was around during a time when I was going to school in Brooklyn, and frankly, absolutely miserable in that city. Then, of course, there's the obvious controversy surrounding its racial content, which doesn't exactly rear its ugly head from the very beginning. It's a little more gradual than that. Spike Lee, in addition to director, plays Mookie, young man living in a black neighborhood in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn with his sister and works as a pizza delivery man for the local pizzeria. Salvatore "Sal" Frangione (played by Danny Aiello), the pizzeria’s Italian-American owner, has owned it for twenty-five years and has never had any trouble with the locals. His older son, Pino (played by John Turturro), "detests the place like a sickness" and holds racial contempt for the neighborhood blacks, which he's constantly referring to as n-- (I won't say it!). The streets of this Brooklyn neighbothood are filled with distinct personalities, most of whom are just trying to find a way to deal with the intense summer heat and go about their regular day-to-day activities. There's a very non-linear style used to learn about who each of them are and the social attitudes they have toward each other and other races in general. There's an unforgettable montage which depicts selected members of the community voicing their racial anger toward a specific group with an onslaught of successive insults hurled at the movie audience watching them. The montage abruptly ends when the local radio DJ, Mister Senior Love Daddy (played by Samuel L. Jackson) orders them to just stop. It's actually quite a brilliant thing to watch.

As mentioned, the hottest day of the summer starts off pretty standard. We know who these people are and we know which ones are filled with anger and hate. As the day wears on, the anger begins to manifest itself into more detailed circumstances and confrontations, particulary over a series of pictures of Italian-American celebrities that hang on the wall of Sal's. A local young man is demanding pictures of black people on the wall, too, since all of Sal's customers are black (personally, it doesn't sound like such an unreasonable request to keep peace with the neighbors). By nightime, all still appears to be normal in the neighborhood and it looks like Sal and his family may just close up for the day without incident. That is, until two angry young men storm into the pizzeria voicing their demands about the pictures. Anger turns to shouting, shouting turns to fighting, fighting turns to street brawling and street brawling results in the police choke-hold murder of a young man named "Radio" Raheem (played Bill Nunn). Even more frightening than the neighborhood riot that breaks out as a result of this is the moments of pause and tension before it actually starts. The residents are angered and outraged, and for a short time, we're not entirely sure of what they're going to do. One can almost assume or predict that they'll all get past this peacefully until the moment when Mookie picks up a garbage can and hurls it through Sal's pizzeria window. That's it! Civil humanity has just come crashing down and all Hell's about to break loose in the streets of Brooklyn. Whether it's justified or not is completely up to you. Perhaps you'll recall Howard Beach in 1986. Spike Lee does.

Finally, one particular question at the end of the film is whether or not Mookie actually 'does the right thing' when he throws the garbage can through the window, thus inciting the riot that destroys Sal's pizzeria. It can be argued that Mookie's action actually saves Sal's life by redirecting the crowd's anger away from Sal himself and onto his property instead. It can also be argued that Mookie's action is irresponsible encouragement to enact the violence that ensues. The question is directly raised by the contradictory quotations that end the film, one by Martin Luther King advocating non-violence, the other by Malcom X advocating violent self-defense in response to violent oppression.

I'll say it one final time - I consider Spike Lee's DO THE RIGHT THING the single best film of the 1980s!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Mookie: "Dago, wop, guinea, garlic-breath, pizza-slingin', spaghetti-bendin', Vic Damone, Perry Como, Luciano Pavarotti, Sole Mio, non-singin' motherfucker!"
Pino: "You gold-teeth-gold-chain-wearin', fried-chicken-and-biscuit-eatin', monkey, ape, baboon, big thigh, fast-runnin', high-jumpin', spear-chuckin', three-hundred-sixty-degree-basketball-dunkin' titsun spade Moulan Yan. Take your fuckin' piece-a-pizza and go the fuck back to Africa!"
Stevie: "You little slanty-eyed, me-no-speaky-American, own-every-fruit-and-vegetable-stand-in-New-York, bullshit, Reverend Sun Myung Moon, Summer Olympics '88, Korean kick-boxing son of a bitch!"
Officer Long: "You Goya bean-eating, fifteen in a car, thirty in an apartment, pointed shoes, red-wearing, Menudo, meda-meda Puerto Rican cocksucker. Yeah, you!"
Sonny: "It's cheap, I got a good price for you, Mayor Koch, "How I'm doing," chocolate-egg-cream-drinking, bagel-and-lox, B'nai B'rith Jew asshole!"
Mister Senior Love Daddy: "Yo! Hold up! Time out! TIME OUT! Y'all take a chill! Ya need to cool that shit out! And that's the double truth, Ruth!"

DOORS, THE

2011-08-03T10:09:00.007-04:00

(March 1991, U.S.)

We're entering a new level of film here in that whether or not you like Oliver Stone's THE DOORS (or any other musical biography) would depend greatly on whether or not you like the original music of the artist or not. Let's face it - if you prefer the music of Lady GaGa over The Doors, well first of all, I greatly PITY you! Second, the movie THE DOORS is probably not for you.

Back in 1991, when I was still attending college, the release of THE DOORS practically took on biblical proportion for me. It wasn't just another movie. It was an immortalization of the great Jim Morrison that had been absent from the screen for too damn long. I ended up seeing it three times. I even made a rather lame attempt to dress up as Jim Morrison for a Halloween college party many months later. Yes, it's pretty safe to say that I love The Doors and the legacy of music they left behind. Even today, when I hear their music and discover how energetic and fresh it still sounds, it's hard to believe that Jim Morrison has been dead for 40 long years (40 years to the date exactly one month ago, actually). Now while I love The Doors, I'm hardly a die hard Jim Morrison fanatic, so I can't really tell you which parts of the film are hard fact and which parts are pure cinematic fiction, and frankly, I don't care. Stone's direction and editing, and Val Kilmer's portrayel of Morrison take you deep into the era of The Doors music and the revolutionary turmoil that defined the late 1960s, fact versus fiction seems almost irrelevant. We may never really know exactly what Jim Morrison did do and what he didn't do, whether or not he was an out of control sociopath, and Stone may come under fire for the rest of his life for any historical innacuracies regarding The Doors. The point is to enjoy the story of the band and the musical impact of their songs, to enjoy the wild antics of Jim Morrison (accurate or not), and to remember that quite often history is usually a matter of one's perspective and not what actually happened. After all, this is the story of the most popular rock band ever to come out of the state of California, so it was all good for those of us who love The Doors and have never forgotten the great Jim Morrison.

Even after 20 years, when I watch this film, I still anticipate with great affection the Death Valley desert sequence that slowly leads into The Doors performance of "The End" at The Whiskey-A-Go-Go. Kilmer nails Morrison's voice perfectly, in my opinion and the performance is hypnotic and captivating. It's also my favorite song by The Doors. What's not to love?

Let me end by dedicated this post to my friends Greg and Daniela, who were both just crazy enough to go see THE DOORS with me each time I wanted to. Thanks, guys!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Jim Morrison: "Close your eyes. We'll see the snake; see the serpent appear. His head is ten feet long and five feet wide. He has one red eye and one green eye. He's seven miles long. Deadly. I see all the history of the world on his scales, all people, all actions. We're all just little pictures on his scales. God, he's big, he's moving, devouring consciousness, digesting power. Monster of energy. It's a monster. Kiss the snake on the tongue. Kiss the serpent. But if it senses fear, it'll eat us instantly. But if we kiss it without fear, it'll take us through the garden, through the gate, to the other side. Ride the snake...until the end of time."

DOG DAY AFTERNOON

2011-08-02T12:32:00.008-04:00

(September 1975, U.S.)

Ladies and gentlemen, once again, we now return you to my favorite actor of all time, the great Al Pacino, as he entertains us all by screaming out the one word that's made him just as famous as his character Michael Corleone..."ATTICA!".

For the benefit of those who don't know, the events of the late director Sidney Lumet's DOG DAY AFTERNOON are based on an actual bank robbery that took place in Brooklyn on August 22, 1972. To fully appreciate the circumstances surrounding the robbery and those who perpetrated it, one must consider the time at which it happened; an era of thick and extremely heavy opposition to the Vietnam war and a general "anti-establishment" position by many American citizens. Like Pacino's Sonny, the real bank robber, John Wojtowicz, was, in fact, a homosexual and was, in fact, robbing the bank in order to pay for a sex change operation for his male lover. By today's standards, all of this might seem about as shocking as Saturday morning children's TV, but back in 1972, one can appreciate how horrifying it must have sounded and how much twisted fun the media must have had with it. There is also an incredible point of irony in that the real John Wojtowicz had based much of his plan for the robbery from having just seen THE GODFATHER that very day. Three years later, it's star Al Pacino would play the lead character of Sonny. Wow.

But I think I've discussed enough of the facts. Let's move on with fiction. Al Pacino (particularly in his younger years) is exactly what you would expect in this film - a commander of intense drama and dialogue, and yes, we get to hear him yell quite a bit, too. And as I've previously mentioned more than once, nothing puts a big smile on my face more than listening to Pacino yell his head off. But when you study his character of Sonny carefully, you can see that despite taking on the role of criminal, he possesses a longing to not only love as best he can, but to occassionally try and do the right thing, too, whether it's pizzas for his hostages or trying to release the one with diabetes. As bank robbers, Sonny and his partner Sal (played by the late John Cazale) seem like complete incompetent schmucks compared to those you might watch in today's modern heist films. Lumet seems almost less interested in showing us the bank robbers here and asks us more to concentrate on the men themselves, particulary Sonny's ability to compensate for his incompetence by shwoing off his unexpected folk-hero charisma. It works for me because I do concentrate and I can feel the anguish these men are going through. Because as Sonny repeatedly puts it, "I'm dyin' here!".

Favorite line or dialogue:

Sonny: "Kiss me."
Sgt. Moretti: "What?"
Sonny: " Kiss me. When I'm being fucked, I like to get kissed a lot."

DOCTOR ZHIVAGO

2011-07-29T08:25:00.008-04:00

(December 1965, U.S.)

Every once in a great while I actually wish that I'd been born about 15 years earlier than I was. Sounds crazy, I know, but think of all the things I might have done if I'd been just a little older. I might have seen a Ford Mustang Convertible (my favorite vintage car!) when it was brand new. I might have gone to Woodstock. I might have seen Led-Zeppelin in concert "back in the day". I might have actually gotten into the legendary Studio 54 back when SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER was all the rage. Most of all, though, I might have been able to see some of the greatest screen epics of the 1960s, like DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, on some of the biggest movie screens in some of the most beautiful movie palaces during their exclusive roadshow engagements. On the other, I might have also gone to Vietnam. It's a thought like that brings me back to reality, hard and fast.

This great film takes place during the tumultuous period of 1912–1923, the years which included World War I, the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War, as the regime of Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown and the Soviet Union was soon established. Through these historical events, we are learning about the life and loves of poet and doctor Yuri Andreyevich Zhivago (played by Omar Sharif). Despite his great popullarity as a poet throughout Russia, he is ultimately still just a man struggling not only to survive the horrors of war and revolution, but to also survive the double life he's created with his wife Tonya (played by Geraldine Chaplin) and his mistress Lara (played by Julie Christie). Of course, if you've seen enough historical screen epics, then you'll know that there's usually a love story just as epic to go with it (i.e., GONE WITH THE WIND and TITANIC). The affair with Lara takes on an extra interest as the story is primarily told through the perspective of Yuri's half brother General Yevgraf Andreyevich Zhivago (played by Alec Guinness) and he attempts to identify a young girl as Yuri's illegitimate child and his own niece. If you study the girl's face carefully, you can almost feel the emotional anguish that is accompanied with learning who your real parents are. In fact, when you watch this film, it's the faces of anguish, pain, love and triumph during a time of great turmoil that capture your attention most.

If you've seen much of David Lean's work, then his richly-textured camera work and cinematography speak for themselves. He is, in my opinion, a man who takes great pride in taking his time with a film; time with story, time with a specific camera shots and time with his performers and what they bring to the screen. In fact, as performers go, I have to say that despite the fact that the plot is centered on Yuri Zhivago and his love interests, it's Rod Steiger's character of Victor Komarovsky that grabs my attention most. Literally, almost every word he speaks throughout the film keeps my eyes and ears on the edge of my interest. Watch, listen and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Victor Komarovski: "And don't delude yourself this was rape. That would flatter us BOTH!"

D.O.A.

2011-07-28T08:03:00.009-04:00

(April 1950, U.S.)

Traditionally, film noir often employs stereotypical elements such as shadows, dark and seedy alleyways and vicious femme fatales. D.O.A. might, at first glance, fool you on that level because their are many physical elements such as outdoor brightness, hotel parties and a hot, swinging jazz club to break those stereotypes. On the other hand, their is also much "tin-pan-alley" dialogue and semi-bad acting that can easily define classic film noir. What ultimately makes D.O.A. a great film is the frantically-paced plot revolving around a doomed man's quest to find out who has poisoned him – and why – before he dies. Once you wrap your head around that concept, the intruigue is hard to resist.

Frank Bigelow (played by Edmond O'Brien) is dead at the beginning of the movie from having been poisoned by a luminous toxin for which there is no antidote. Right now, he's still breathing, as he walks into a police station to report his own murder. Through a flashback, we discover how his mundane profession as an accountant and notary public inadvertently caused his own death when he innocently notarized a document for a bill of sale for what turns out to be stolen iridium. He then enters a world of criminals and psychotic hit men as he struggles to stay alive just long enough to learn the truth about his own murder. As I mentioned before, the intruige is strong, especially when you come to understand how a man's simple daily profession could ultimately get him killed.

There is a very interesting sequence that takes place at a San Francisco jazz club (where the poisoning of Frank's drink actually takes place). This scene includes one of the earliest depictions of the Beat subculture, clearly showcasing a real popular African-American jazz band of the time. Study the close-ups of the band as they play with all of their heart and souls, tearing up the night with swinging music. I should also point out that director Rudolph Maté liberally uses Broadway and the Bradbury Building in Los Angeles during his location shooting and includes the Million Dollar Theater's blazing marquee in the background. This movie theater would later serve the same function when Ridley Scott filmed BLADE RUNNER (1982) at the famous Bradbury Building.

Back in 1988, when I was in college, I saw a film with Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan called D.O.A. When it was over, I told my friends that I thought it was the best and most original thriller I'd ever seen (up until then, anyway). Little did I know at the time it was actually a remake.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Frank Bigelow: "I wanna report a murder."
Police Captain: "Sit down. Where was this murder committed?"
Frank: "San Francisco. Last night."
Captain: "Who was murdered?"
Frank: "I was."

DIVORCE, ITALIAN STYLE

2011-07-27T09:17:00.010-04:00

(September 1962, U.S.)

One of the funniest elements of comedy I've ever seen is a situation where a man is in a miserable marriage and experiences explicit fantasies about getting rid of his wife. Jack Lemmon's character did it in HOW TO MURDER YOUR WIFE (1965). Danny DeVito's character did it in RUTHLESS PEOPLE (1986). Even Hal Holbrook's character in CREEPSHOW (1982) had a moment where he shot his wife to death in front of his party guests, igniting their joyous applause. And just watch John Cleese as Basil Fawlty in any BBC episode of FAWLTY TOWERS to see what I'm talking about. Same thing here, only Italian style...

Outside of Roberto Benigni's films, I haven't seen too much Italian comedy. In fact, if DIVORCE, ITALIAN STYLE weren't officially labeled as a comedy, you'd swear you were watching one of Federico Fellini's films in that much of Pietro Germi's finely textured direction, black and white cinematography and even dialogue comes close to the great Italian film legend. But a comedy it is, and laugh you do at this wonderful satire. Marcello Mastroianni is Baron Fefé Cefalù, a Sicilian nobleman bored of his life and of his irritating wife Rosalia. He's fallen in love with his young, beautiful (and underage) cousin Angela, who spends summers in the same palace as he and his family. Since divorce is impossible in Italy in the 1960s, he decides to kill his wife, knowing that the prison sentence would be very light if he could prove that he committed murder for a matter of honour, i.e. finding his wife together with another man. The only solution there is to see to it that she finds herself a lover and somehow catch her in the act. Well, that's what tape recorders and drilling holes in the walls of your home are for, right? And let me just say that as the viewer, you support his actions all the way. From the moment we meet his wife and her disgustingly-sugar-sweet clinging attitude toward Fefé, frankly you'd like to put her out of YOUR misery, too! So let's just say that things manage to work out for him in the end...sort of.

The picture that Pietro Germi paints of life in a small Sicilian village is picturesque, much imitated, and quite indelible. The crowded ornate clutter of the family's old estate, the sun-drenched streets and the monolithic stone and mason churches stick with your memory, even haunt it. And don't forget to take note of the director's small homage to Fellini's LA DOLCE VITA which, ironically, also stars Marcello Mastroianni. A moment ago, I used the word imitated - keep in mind that it's probably necessary to calculate the chronilogical order in which many films of this sort were made, including titles by Fellini and De Sica's THE BICYCLE THIEF (1948) before accusing other films of imitating Germi's work. No matter, because I love these old black and white Italian films, regardless of who copied who first. Great film making of this sort is dead in our own country as far as I'm concerned.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Fefé Cefalù (voice-over, referring to Fellini's LA DOLCE VITA): "Preceded by scandal, controversy, protest, critical outcry and hosannas, a sensational film had opened in town. The priest of San Filmino railed against it, warning his flock to boycott it, but to little effect."

DISCLOSURE

2011-07-25T12:43:00.013-04:00

(December 1994, U.S.)

I'm going to start this post by telling you all a little bedtime story...

Once upon a time in 1963, a young man saw a young woman who happened to work in the same department store as he standing against a pole. The first thing he said to her was, "I think that pole can stand on its own." One year later, he married her. Three years after that, those two people became my parents. Thirty-one years later, in 1998, I met a young woman in my office who was giving a consultant's presentation. That night, I committed what many might consider an unprofessional and inappropriate act by leaving her a message on her office voicemail in which I asked her out on a date. She was just crazy enough to say yes and today this woman is my wife and the mother of my son. Finally, some time ago, there was a very attractive and very well-built young receptionist working in my office who had an adorable habit of calling everyone who worked with her, "Baby". Surprisingly, no one considered this unprofessional in any way (???). For myself, I can only say with complete honesty that I've never had a girl call me "baby" whom I wasn't sleeping with. What's more, I'd be lying through my fucking teeth if I told you that I was never tempted to return some sort of flirtation with her (I'm a MAN, for Christ sakes, so that makes me human!). But I couldn't because I was in the workplace and returning the affection or flirtation or whatever you want to call it would have likely had me explaining myself in front of a judge. In other words, it appeared to be acceptable from the girl but would never be tolerated by the guy. I suppose my only real point with this story is that even in the modern workplace of the 21st Century, I'm still often unclear about what is and what's not acceptable dialogue between male and femail colleagues. I suppose until someone offers a solid explanation of the do's and don'ts, I'll just play it safe and keep my big mouth shut.

Regarding this Barry Levinson-directed film, first let me ask you all if you remember my post for BASIC INSTINCT in which I stated that between that film, this film, FATAL ATTRACTION (1987) and his own marriage to Catherine Zeta-Jones, actor Michael Douglas has seen more ass than a car rental (just thought I'd throw that out there again!). Based on Micahel Crichton original novel, DISCLOSURE is set in Seattle, Washington where software company DigiCom is about to merge with a publishing company. Tom Sanders (played by Douglas), head of manufacturing, expects to be promoted to run DigiCom after the merger. However, he learns that the position instead went to operations executive Meredith Johnson (played by the incredibly desirable Demi Moore), a former girlfriend from a long time ago. Late one evening, Meredith calls Tom into her office, ostensibly to discuss a project he's working on. Instead, she aggressively tries to resume her sexual relationship with him. Tom resists (not without difficulty) as he's now a faithfully-married family man. As he leaves, Meredith threatens to make him pay for spurning her (Hell hath no fury!). She does this by filing an alleged sexual harassment charge against him to their superiors. We're now faced with a situation in which we, the viewer, know the truth but instead we have a war of "he said, she said" in which Meredith will likely come out the winner as she is Tom's boss now. We get to see the legal end of things through Tom's female attourney in which it appears that regardless of the actual outcome, somehow Tom will lose because in the end it's all just one big game. Even when Tom manages to come out ahead through an unknowing recording on an answering machine which depicts Meredith's aggressive advances towards him, it seems that his company will still try to ruin him, regardless, in order to make sure the above-mention merger goes through without a hitch. In the end, though, cliche takes over as Tom's job is saved and Meredith is fired; not for her sexual harassment but rather for her part in a company cover-up. In the end, Tom is left in the same position he was in at the beginning of the film, but only after a narrow escape. Business as usual and they all lived happily ever.

The film invites us to critically examine topics such as the ease with which allegations of sexual harassment can destroy one's career and whether or not a double standard exists when such allegations are levied by men or women. Well, if you consider what I mentioned above about my company's receptionist, a double standard is certainly a possibility..."baby"!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Catherine Alvarez: "If you sue, you'll never get another job in the computer business; if you don't sue they'll bury you in Austin. If you sue it's news; if you don't it's gossip. If you sue nobody will believe you; if you don't, your wife won't. They will make your life into a living hell for the next three years until this case goes to trial. And for that privilege, it's going to cost you a minimum of a hundred thousand dollars. Do you not think it's a game Mr. Sanders? It's a game to them. How do you feel about losing?"

DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS

2011-07-21T12:56:00.016-04:00

If I were to ask you people who Frank Oz is, how many of you could identify him as someone OTHER than the man who performs Yoda in the STAR WARS saga (that's just too damn easy!)? Could you identify him as someone who's made cameo appearances in a string of director John Landis' films? Could you identify him as the director of some very funny films like WHAT ABOUT BOB? (1991), IN & OUT (1997) and BOWFINGER (1999)? Think you could?

Let me start out by saying that after more than 20 years, I just learned that DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS is apparantly an "unofficial" remake of a 1964 film called BEDTIME STORY, which I've never seen. I never would have guessed. You learn something new everyday.

Now you might not guess it by observing English actor Michael Caine's dashing and cultivated persona, but the man can be very, very funny. Steve Martin, of course, speaks for himself. They play unwitting partners in confidence scamming as they both operate some of the deluxe hotels along the French Riviera while targeting rich and gullible women who can appreciate their style and culture. As Martin's small-time hustler character Freddy Benson puts it, "I've got culture coming out of my ass!" In fact, I have to say that Martin's portrayel of "Ruprecht The Monkey Boy" is one of the funniest things I've ever seen him do on screen. And so as the two comedically try to tolerate one another, their con begins to take shape, as well as the bet between them; whoever can get $50,000 from a naive and wealthy American heiress first will also win the privelege of being able to stay on to continue as the big "player". The loser will have to leave town. As each one attempts new and rather hilarious tactics to come out on top, we slowly find out who the target really is, and that is just an ordinary woman who would have to raise the money in order for one of our con artists to get it. Uh-oh! Looks like moral conscience might actually set in for at least one of them. But guess what happens then? The plot turns itself around as we discover that the players themselves got played...for $50,000. Do we feel bad for them? Of course not! This is comedy. It's all good.

I saw DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS in the theater at the time of its release with an old college roomate named Chris (whom I've previously described in another post). Look up the movie poster for this film to see how Michael Caine and Steve Martin are posed and keep it in mind. Whenever Chris and I would pass each other holding a drink, we would suddenly stop, look at each other, put a couple of shit-eating grins on our face and say to each other, "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels!", just to be funny (man, I miss that guy!). I have to also say that years ago I was unwillingly dragged to the Broadway musical version of this film. Very bad! In fact, I'm through wasting my time and money on Broadway musicals based on movies!

Finally, I'd like to dedicate this post to my cousin Alan, who has concluded that DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS is the "best movie ever"! When he was a kid, it was THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956). So basically, we've managed to go from the great Cecil B. Demille to the guy who does Yoda! Curious.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Freddy Benson (as Ruprecht): "Not mother?"

DIRTY HARRY

2011-07-20T12:57:00.011-04:00

(December 1971, U.S.)

The original...the one and only...DIRTY HARRY; a product of the so-called "New Hollywood" of the 1970s, when previous films like BONNIE AND CLYDE (1967) and THE WILD BUNCH (1969) paved the way for excessive, yet somehow acceptable violence on the screen. Believing the character was too "right-wing" for him, Paul Newman turned down the role and suggested that the film would be a good vehicle for Clint Eastwood. Thus, Detective Harry Callahan was born.

Some of you younger readers (younger than myself, I mean) may have first come across Harry Callahan back in 1983 when he uttered one of the most famous quotes in movie history, "Go ahead...make my day!" in SUDDEN IMPACT. That was a great line, but I thought the film sucked! DIRTY HARRY is set in San Francisco when the "peace and love" of the city was coming to an end and being substituted for the violent scum that Harry spends his career putting away or putting down. For this story, a serial killer who calls himself "Scorpio" (played by Andy Robinson) murders a young woman in a rooftop swimming pool, using a high-powered, silencer-equipped hunting rifle from the top of a building across the street. Even as the film begins with this shocking murder, the viewer can already feel a sense of being very unsafe from any potention lunatic with a gun and access to a building roof. The character of "Scorprio" by the way, was likely inspired by the real life "Zodiac Killer" who had operated in Northern California during the late '60s and early '70s. This is just the beginning of the killer's pattern that will include more murders and the kidnapping children even as Harry and the city's government scramble to pay off the high ransom he demands. At one point in the film, "Scorpio" will be caught by Harry, only to be released very quickly afterwards due to the technecalities of our flawed system of justice. But if you know Harry Callahan well enough, you know that just won't sit too well with him. Harry always gets (or kills) his man and usually pisses of his superiors in the process. It's important to also point out Robinson's performance as he gives the killer a particularly sick and frightening personality. This is NOT a man you'd want to meet in a dark corner or any other locale.

Though not my all-time favorite, DIRTY HARRY is one of the toughest, grittiest, most intense American police thrillers I've ever seen. When released, the film caused its share of controversy, sparking debate over issues ranging from police brutality to victims' rights to the nature of law enforcement. Feminists in particular were outraged by the film and at the 1971 Oscars protested outside holding up banners which read messages like "Dirty Harry is a Rotten Pig". Well, some people have just seriously got to lighten up! It's only a movie. Protests only boost box office performance. It's true.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Harry Callahan (last lines): "I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking "did he fire six shots or only five?" Now to tell you the truth I forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow you head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk!?"

DINER

2011-07-19T13:01:00.009-04:00

(March 1982, U.S.)

You know what I miss? I miss the so-called "slice of life" youth films that used to grace the screen every once in a while before the the other so-called "brat pack" youth films took over the 1980s for a while. I love coming-of-age films like AMERCICAN GRAFFITTI (1973), BREAKING AWAY (1979) and DINER which focus on a small group of friends approaching the crossroads of adulthood. These stories have often shown the drama, the pain and the humor of leaving behind what you once knew and embracing what's to come in the future. Also, if you were to look up the casting of the three films I just mentioned, you'd find that just about everyone involved went on to bigger and greater stardom (look them up).

So, we have director Barry Levinson's debut film here; it's set in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1959, and tells the story of a group of male high-school friends (look up the cast and marvel at how young they all were once), now in their twenties, who reunite for the wedding of one of their group. The title DINER refers to the Fells Point Diner, the group's late-night hangout. The film explores the changing relationships among these men as they become adults through what is basically a series of vignettes rather than any sort of traditional narrative. It's said that during filming, Levinson encouraged improvisation among his cast to capture naturalistic camaraderie. It clearly shows in many scenes where straight-forward dialogue commands the story. One has to presume that the simple sequence of putting a bunch of men together to engage in ongoing conversation at a table in a diner is likely tougher than once would imagine. I've been writing screenplays myself for many years and I can tell you that dialogue is very challanging in that you struggle to keep it from drying up at any given moment. But for any man in his youth watching DINER, there is almost certainly a character or a conversation that can hit home on a personal level. You sit, you watch, you listen and maybe you even find yourself thinking that you know "someone like that" or have "said something like that" yourself. These are scripts and characters that have been well presented if they can "touch" the viewer in this manner. For myself, there's a part of Daniel Stern's character that I can relate to quite well. The scene where he very passionately describes his record collection to his wife and how each one of them meaningfully takes him back to a certain part of his life hits home for me. I still have a rather large vinyl collection myself. Sure, I own an iPod like every other schmuck out there, but I couldn't live without my records. The experience of buying a new record, unwrapping it, delicately putting the needle at the beginning and crancking up the music for all to hear was an experience that I don't believe anyone who is a product of modern 21st century music technology will every fully understand or appreciate.

I saw DINER in the theater with my family back in 1982. I was only 15 years-old, but I appreciated the film to the degree that I already appreciated the other two films I previously mentioned, released years earlier. It was a simple film that was released by a major studio (MGM) "back in the day". This would not happen today because I'm afraid anything resembling witty and intelligent dialogue spoken by men in a diner who can actually act would not play out very well in today's bullshit digital 3-D. I should also point out, on a much lighter note, that DINER is the only film I've ever seen where people put gravy on their french fries. What's up with that???

Favorite line or dialogue:

Modell (spoken during the end credits): "People do not come from swamps. They come...they come from Europe."

DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE

2011-07-16T12:12:00.011-04:00

(May 1995, U.S.)

The release of DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE was interestingly timed. At that time, for the better part of 1994, there had been a small and successful release of action films that focussed on mad bombers and demolitions experts. Those films included SPEED, BLOWN AWAY and THE SPECIALIST. And so, THIS TIME (there are those words again!), our hero John McClane is pitted against mad terrorist Simon (played by the great Jeremy Irons) who's planting destructive explosive devices all over Manhattan. THIS TIME, McClane's back in his hometown of New York City, and THIS TIME he's joined by an unwitting partner by the name of Zeus (played by Samuel L. Jackson). Oh yeah, and THIS TIME, original DIE HARD director John McTierman is back at the helm.

So with this story, McClane not only has to stop the bad guys but he also has to play Simon's little mind-fuck games that will have him and Zeus hopping around from one part of the city to another in order to stop the bombs from exploding; one of them planted inside an elementary school in Harlem. But just like the previous two films, our hero's actions are not always successful. One exploding bomb manages to derail a subway train and inflict heavy damage in the downton Wall Street area. While playing Simon's game, McClane realizes that something's wrong and returns to Wall Street while Zeus continues to follow Simon's instructions. McClane finds Simon's men have raided the Federal Reserve Bank through the ruined subway system, making off with $140 billion in gold bullion from the vault, hauling it away in dump trucks (not a bad heist, I must say!). The action continues on a huge tanker and climaxes across the Canadian border where McClane will once again kill the bad guys and will once again say, "Yippie-kai-yay motherfucker!" at just about the time he's doing so. What else would movie audiences expect, right?

DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE takes on a new and interesting perspective when viewing it in a post 9/11 world. The explosion in the Wall Street vicinity feels different to watch in a world where global terrorism is on the minds of many Americans. Would Hollywood have filmed such an event in the streets of New York City after September 11th? Of course they would! Hollywood is filled with insensitive pimps and whores who don't give a fuck about anything execept their weekend grosses!

Well, my friends, I have to say that after three DIE HARD films in just a few days, I am completely "John McClane'd" out! So don't expect a post for LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD. I hated it!

Favorite line or dialogue:

John McClane: "I'll tell you what your problem is, you don't like me 'cause you're a racist!"
Zeus Carver: "What?"
John: "You're a racist! You don't like me 'cause I'm white!"
Zeus: "I don't like you because you're gonna get me KILLED!"

DIE HARD 2

2011-07-13T13:49:00.016-04:00

(July 1990, U.S.)

The Summer of 1990 was one of the most depressing summers I've ever had to endure. To begin with, I couldn't find a summer job and the one I did finally find was horrible. The car I was driving was a certifiable piece of shit. And, oh yeah, I was experiencing the horrible agony of being in love with the wrong girl. At the movies, crap like DICK TRACY, TOTAL RECALL and ROBOBCOP 2 weren't exactly doing much to lift my spirits. In fact, during that entire summer there were only two films that managed to put a big smile on my face and help me to forget my troubles for a while. The first was David Lynch's WILD AT HEART. The second was...you guessed it...DIE HARD 2! This sequel, in my opinion, actually surpasses the original in story and excitement. It's also probably the only good film director Renny Harlin has and ever will likely make in his entire career.

One of the interesting points about discussing almost any sequel is that it gives you the opportunity to frequently use the words, "this time". So, THIS TIME our great hero John McClane finds himself unwittingly involved in a terrorist plot at Washington Dulles International Airport while awaiting the arrival of his wife's plane. Oh, and of course, this is all happening on Christmas Eve again (perhaps McClane should try celebrating Hanukkah instead!). THIS TIME the terrorists have taken over air traffic control systems from a nearby church, cutting off communication to all the in-bound planes, and have seized control of the entire airport. Their goal is to rescue Ramon Esperanza (played by Franco Nero), a powerful drug lord and dictator of Val Verde, who is flying into the United States to stand trial. At one point, during a rather horrifying sequence, the terrorist leader Col. Stuart (played by William Sadler) uses an instrument landing system to deliberately crash a plane, killing everyone on board. You may find this hard to believe, but 21 years ago when I saw this in the theater, everyone in the audience actually cheered with excitement when the plane exploded. Since 9/11, nobody in their decent right mind would ever do that now (I hope). Guns blaze galore, shit explodes and it's an undenyable huge thrill from beginning to end. As you'd expect, McClane defeats the bad guys, saves the innocent and is reunited with his wife Holly. I have to say, though, the idea of Los Angeles reporter Richard Thornburg (played by William Atherton) who just HAPPENS to be on the same flight as Holly is too far-fetched for even my tastes to accept. It's necessary, I suppose, so he can once again open his big mouth to expose the horrible news for his own professional gains. Still...THE SAME FLIGHT???

Favorite line or dialogue:

John McClane (just before destroying the bad guy's plane): "Yippie-kai-yay, motherfucker!"