TOM'S OCTOBER MOVIE ROUNDUP
+SHOOTING WAR (200) – Time film critic Richard Schickel directed this documentary on how cameramen shot film during World War II. Hundreds of camera operators were unleashed in the middle of the fighting to bring whatever they could back and many died trying to do it. I was surprised at the amount of valuable footage that exists. My granfather fought in the Pacific and his brother the tail gunner was shot down over Europe. This movie gives a good record of what those young warriors witnessed. Thankfully, many of the cameramen are still with us and Schickel’s interviews are every bit as interesting as the footage itself. Produced by Steven Spielberg, this movie opens and is bridged by a bearded civil war looking Tom Hanks. Steven Ambrose also pops up with little facts ala History Channel. The movie needs neither Hanks nor Ambrose. They both tend to give the piece a TV feel when the movie is compelling for its honest simplicity alone.
+CRASH (2005) – Word of Paul Haggis script work on MILLION DOLLAR BABY must have gotten around Hollywood way before the release of the film, because CRASH was released just a few months after the Oscars. I thought his script for the first film was decent, but Eastwood’s smooth direction and cast plussed it up. The essence of Million Dollar Baby was getting you think different about the hot button issue of mercy killing. The hot button issue in CRASH is race and ethnicity and Haggis shows you how those elements enter the lives of many different kinds of people. He shows how white liberals deal with the fear of minorities, how vocally racist cops can be colorblind in moments of danger, how Muslims and Hispanics are viewed by everyone, and how professional blacks have to deal with their current world and the one they came from. The movie follows the same structure of two other L.A. films, SHORT CUTS and MAGNOLIA, where a bunch of characters live their lives intersecting with one another. And although I liked both of the aforementioned films, the device here actually weakens the material, because Haggis is trying something more ambitious than Altman or PT Anderson and the continual happenchance meetings between these few characters is jolting in a film that seems more like real life than the others. The biggest success of CRASH are the original and honest characters that don't make it into movies often enough. That helps make up for the conventionality of the resolution.
Z CHANNEL: A Magnificent Obesession (2004) – Zan Cassavettes, daughter of John and Gena and sister of Nick directs this compelling documentary about a popular L.A. pay channel that outperformed HBO and Showtime in the 70s and 80s. The real story isn’t the channel though, but its mad genius program selector, Jerry Harvey. Harvey practically invented the director’s cut by allowing noted directors to resurrect the versions the Studios hated. Uncut versions of Bertolucci’s 1900, Cimino’s HEVEAN’S GATE, and Visconti’s THE LEOPARD debuted on the Z CHANNEL. Quite probably, those versions wouldn’t exist today without Harvey. Harvey also helped make the career of young filmmakers like Jim Jarmusch by showing their films. Harvey’s showing of Paul Verhoeven’s European films led to the director making films in Hollywood. Eventually, the big players got tired of competing with little Z and used money muscle to outspend their little competitor in movie acquisition. Harvey met his own fate.
THE UPSIDE OF ANGER (2005) – Joan Allen stars as the abandoned wife trying to cope with hard liquor and the attentions of ex-ballplayer, Kevin Costner. Her four mostly grown daughters also pose their challenges along the way. It’s seeming like Costner is only good at playing jocks and ex jocks, but boy is he good at it. Allen is probably one of the better actresses of the day and this is the kind of role that should see her nominated. Costner has no shot at the same, but he holds his own in every scene with her. The film itself is lifted by the two leads, because otherwise the material isn’t terribly good.
TOMBSTONE (1993) – Our library evidently would rather compete with Blockbuster than Border’s because you have to pass through the sea of DVDs before getting to the books. I picked up Tombstone on the way to Hemingway not having seen it since its release. Kurt Russell stars as Wyatt Earp, but the money role is Doc Holliday played by Val Kilmer. Russell doesn’t make many classics, but he has a good feeling about scripts and he usually winds up in passably entertaining fare like this. Although the sets and costumes look fine, the movie doesn’t seem period real, but maybe that helped it outperform at the box office. It made $56 million which is about the same as Kevin Costner’s OPEN RANGE made in 2003. A lot of noticeable faces appear in this movie including a pre-stardom Billy Bob Thorton. At the time I remember many people telling me they loved this movie, although I didn’t really care for it all that much. A second viewing ten years hasn’t changed my opinion.
WINGSPAN (2001) – McCartney produced this documentary about his 1970s band I think because he wanted to remember Linda. It’s a family affair with his daughter doing the interviewing and Paul explaining the origins and dissolution of the band. There’s a lot of great tour video and Paul goes in depth on each album and how it came to be produced.
+THE MACHINST (2004) – All I knew was that Christian Bale was supposed to have lost a ton of weight for the role and that is evident when you see his shirtless body. I can’t imagine the experience was good for his health especially since he put it back on for Batman this summer. That said, The Machinst was a surprisingly great find. It’s a mystery for the audience because situations change and you have to discover with the character what is actually happening. It also has a few real touching moments that are all the more poignant by the end. Some might think it gimmicky, but I consider it clever.
BORN TO KILL (1947) – After Lawrence Tierney appeared in Reservoir Dogs, I read an interview he gave and he sounded like such a tough guy that I wanted to see one of his old movies. This wasn’t a bad choice. Here Tierney co-stars with Claire Trevor and is directed by Robert Wise. Not the typical noir movie because there is so much daylight, but Tierney is indeed one tough mother. This is a great one to show your daughter when warning of the dangers of chasing the bad boy. AllMovie.com seems to think it’s worth 4 stars, but I think they give it an extra star for being noir. The plot is basically some psycho that kills people for every little slight and a woman that is attracted to him because of it. There are some interesting character performances that may be worth an extra half star at most.
WALT: THE MAN BEHIND THE MYTH (2001) – This documentary was produced and aired on ABC for Walt’s Centennial. Dick Van Dyke does a good job with narration and in many ways it’s the best video biography ever produced by the company that bears his name. My biggest disappointment is the way they handle Walt’s politics in general and especially HUAC. We see Walt telling the committee that he’s had some communist agitation in his unions and we hear Van Dyke tells us that Walt was politically naïve. Nuts, I say. Union Leader Herb Sorrel was indeed agitating and taking his orders from the party. Not long ago Hollywood could have pretended that it was a witch hunt and a lot of innocent people were branded communists, but the release of the Venona papers in the mid 1990s provides the evidence of who was on what Soviet payroll. If anyone was politically naïve, it was those idealists that were taking money from a totalitarian government every bit as vicious as the Nazis. So, besides the fact that the movie has to apologize for Walt's politics, the rest of it is alright.
FAHRENHEIT 911 (2004) – Bowling for Columbine may have been manipulative propaganda, but at least it was funny. I may have disagreed with his premise, but it’s always fun seeing even-keeled professionals be confronted by that wooly mammoth. The audacity of taking those shot up kids to K-Mart is at least interesting. And the cartoon in that film was ridiculous and yet made me laugh anyway. The problem with all of his films is that they lack a clean narrative. BOWLING couldn’t decide if it was anti-gun or just anti-American shock media. Here the FAHRENHEIT is the worst of all worlds. There are scant laughs and the focus shifts on a dime. It has the feeling that it was rushed into theatres as a device to defeat Bush rather than a device to entertain. It made over $100 million, and about 10x the amount of BOLWING, proving that Bush hatred will fuel the box office more so than Clinton love or Kerry love.
+FAHRENHYPE (2004) – Dick Morris helped write and Ron Silver provides the voice over in this very effective refutation of the Michael Moore movie. They pretty much go point by point showing Moore’s deceptions and outright lies. The phony pipeline and the Bush relationship with the Saudis is dealt with extensively. Maybe more effective is the soldier that lost his arms explaining that Moore never visited Walter Reed Medical Center and that his interview was actually with NBCs Brian Williams. Unlike the portrayal in the film, this soldier is not bitter about what happened to him. The Oregon state trooper tells us that he was shot for another documentary and Moore was no where near that one either. He’s not too happy with the conclusions either. The film also talks to soldiers and families that have real love for the military. This movie is better than other debunking films like Michael Moore Hates America and Celcius 41.11.
WIMBLEDON (2005) – Typically predictable piece with Kirsten Dunst graduating from Spidergirlfriend to adult enough to romance the somewhat older guy. Trish is usually requesting comedies and there are so few good ones that star anyone still living. This is more or less a slight comedy with serious parts like Pretty Woman. Paul Bettany is the aging British tennis star ready to retire when meeting Dunst revitalizes his career. If the movie has any model it’s NOTTING HILL from a few years ago. Somewhat obscure Brit gets involved with famous yank. Remember the kooky roommate from HILL? That character is re-written here as brother of our hero who has made a living betting against the brother. John Farveau is the agent trying to make a dime off the resurgent Bettany. Sam Neill drops the Australlian accent to be Dunst’s driving father. It was mindless alright, especially the gratuitous shots following the tennis ball like a video game. You always hope to be surprised by a winning film like LOVE ACTUALLY, but Wimbledon is a reminder that most movies disappoint.
BATMAN BEGINS (2005) –I haven’t cared much for the character of Batman since I outgrew the campy TV show around age 11. I found Tim Burton’s two movies to be nonsense. Christopher Nolan finally gets it right. One of the most important elements here is his background, something we get with Spiderman, Superman and all the other mans. These filmmakers understand that it’s easier to identify with a character when you see the journey that led them to modern day. The second big strength is the superb cast of supporting characters, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Tom Wilkinson and the never off-key Morgan Freeman. And Christian Bale is certainly good as our hero. How did he put on the weight so quickly after the MACHINIST? The weakest link is Katie Holmes that suffers even months after the publicity stunt with Cruise. She is professionally cute, but too young looking to be believable as the Gotham DA. This could be a good series if Nolan and the cast want to continue.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Saturday, October 22, 2005
THE DAY I MET DICK MORRIS
I heard Dick Morris on the radio yesterday being interviewed by local host, Pat Campbell. He was in town book signing to promote Hilary v Condi. That sounded interesting but I had no intention of fighting I-4 traffic at rush hour to get to the East Colonial Barnes and Noble by 7pm. As it turned out, Sean needed a ride to Winter Park to pick up his ailing car so I found myself not far from the book signing at a quarter to seven.
I arrived almost exactly at 7pm, and Morris had a giant tour bus outside with his name and a large picture of the book cover. New York Times Bestselling authors live a little like rock stars it turns out. When I entered a college aged clerk had a stack of all the Morris books and she said that he would autograph any one of them. I wasn't much interested in the newest book. I already agree that Condi would be a great candidate if she would run. I picked up his Machiavelli book and thought about buying it, but then I decided on OFF WITH THEIR HEADS his 1993 book. He writes one every year, I think. I walked to the counter to purchase it and then changed my mind. I don't need another book. I decided to listen to the talk and then go.
Morris was still swilling delectables inside the bus by 7:15 when Trish called with news that she had to work later than planned. As she was telling me about the intern that didn't finish the flyer he was supposed to make, Morris came riding up the escalator shorter than any man in the building, and paunchier than the sitdown FoxNews interviews would suggest. Trish kept talking and asked why I wasn't responding, not knowing that I was in a crowd of people and I didn't want to interrupt Dick who was only 15 to 20 feet away. He began apologizing for being late. The event was scheduled for 7pm but he told a radio audience 7:30 so he decided he would do two talks. I remember him saying 7 early that morning so he must have gotten confused on the drive home interview.
Dick Morris is uniquely interesting in these times as the man who worked for Clinton in the 1990s, but isn't a committed liberal. He spoke of the differences between Bill and Hilary and how people are angered that he's "against" the Clintons. He says it's not like he appreciates Jack and Bobby and doesn't like Ted. Bill and Hilary share no DNA. Morris slyly took credit for many Clinton accomplishments through the evening like Welfare Reform, earned income tax credit etc. But he also criticizes Bill for not prosecuting the War on Terror in the 90s. He thinks Bill is a great engaging guy who went into politics because he likes adulation and the warmth of crowds. Hilary he says is nothing but a socialist that wants to re-distribute wealth.
His main message though was Condi will run for President if we say we want her to run. He quotes Churchill who says that some people are born great, others strive to greatness, and some have greatness thrust on them. He also cited the Eisenhower example of a person who didn't actively run for office and didn't even say whether he was a Republican or Democrat and he won the New Hampshire primary anyway. He joked that No means No on a date, but not in politics.
His talk was shortened and he said he was going to sign some books, give a longer talk at 7:30 and then sign some more. Enough of what he said was interesting and the line wasn't long so I decided to buy a book for signature. I was about six people away from the signing when he decided to halt autographs and talk some more. This put me standing on the left hand side during his talk and as his eyes scanned the crowd, he made eye contact with me frequently. I couldn't figure out if I was the right height or just listening intently enough that I made a good anchor on that side of the room.
His talk was much the same as the first but he was relaxed far more the second time. He was more gregarious and he told more jokes and had a disarming laugh that made us all join in on several occasions. In the second talk he went on about Condi more and how we should form local groups to try and draft her for president. He seems to be using the book tour to promote a grass roots effort. He also told us that a radio caller had called him a Judas for what he did to the Clintons. He said that he never kissed Clinton. He laughed and we joined him.
He said the indictment against Tom Delay by Ronnie Earl was nonsense. All politicians do what Delay did. But he also thinks that Delay should be prosecuted for his gerrymadering that's ruining democracy. According to Morris, there are now only 20 competitive districts in the House of Representatives due to Delay. He asked me to hold up my copy of OFF WITH THEIR HEADS as said this earlier book would explain it better. He didn't mention that the current situation began when courts started gerrymandering districts to create black congressmen before the Republican takeover. That sucked out so many obvious voters that many Democrats had trouble keeping their once safe seats.
The best question came from a leftwing woman who said that she thought the war was immoral when children didn't have health insurance and the environment was so terrible. Another woman wanted to answer the woman and she started to say that her son just returned from Iraq and didn't agree, but Morris said that he would answer the question because it was his book signing.
He began by telling her that she had a lot of courage asking that question in this crowd and that he would personally ensure her security which brought a big laugh from the crowd. He explained that Saddam Hussein as far as genocidal maniacs was on of the worst in history and the war saved lives a freed an enslaved nation. There were no weapons of mass destruction, but everyone thought there were weapons. He said that Bill Clinton told him back in the 90s that Saddam had these weapons.
As far as health insurance, he and Clinton found $10 billion to ensure every kid in America and much of the money was sent back because states didn't need it all. He and Clinton also setup the earned income child credit so that every family would get enough money back to rise to over the poverty level. He was angry that John Edwards was proposing this in the last campaign when it's been law since the 1990s. Now on the environment he told the poor woman that Bush has been horrible and began to explain to us that global warming is making hurricanes worse and Bush won't address it. He said that if it weren't for the war he would oppose Bush because of his record here. It got to the heart of Morris' view on politics. In his world, every human crisis can be addressed through the political process. That the Earth is getting hotter and it has no human cause, doesn't mean that we cannot cool that darn thing down with enough legislation.
When he finished, the line began again and I got closer to having my OFF WITH THEIR HEADS inscribed. The gentleman two up handed Dick a large piece of paper currency and it seemed to surprise him. The guy wanted him to take the money for the draft Condi effort Morris had proposed. Dick explained that he could help by buying the book or he should take that money and form a club on his own. The guy left confused, I think. The girl in front of me told Dick that she was a socialist. I suppose she wanted a reaction considering that Dick had called Hilary one earlier. Instead, he said that she was about to get a Senator. Bernie Sanders of Vermont would no doubt be replacing Jim Jeffords.
When I got to the table he shook my hand and asked if I had been in the military, my hair being too long to be a current member. I guess I have that sort of look. I said no, but my dad was in the Army and I was born on a military base. He said that my dad had done a great thing. I guess it was a line he was dying to use on me before I let him down. I said that I enjoyed seeing him on FoxNews. His opinions were original and insightful. He thanked me and I asked what political books influenced him. He told me that if I wanted to run for office I should read his Machiavelli book. I said that I had seen it downstairs but I was interested in what books were an influence to him from a analytical perspective. He said that no book influenced him, it was his own experience in politics that taught him what he knows.
I heard Dick Morris on the radio yesterday being interviewed by local host, Pat Campbell. He was in town book signing to promote Hilary v Condi. That sounded interesting but I had no intention of fighting I-4 traffic at rush hour to get to the East Colonial Barnes and Noble by 7pm. As it turned out, Sean needed a ride to Winter Park to pick up his ailing car so I found myself not far from the book signing at a quarter to seven.
I arrived almost exactly at 7pm, and Morris had a giant tour bus outside with his name and a large picture of the book cover. New York Times Bestselling authors live a little like rock stars it turns out. When I entered a college aged clerk had a stack of all the Morris books and she said that he would autograph any one of them. I wasn't much interested in the newest book. I already agree that Condi would be a great candidate if she would run. I picked up his Machiavelli book and thought about buying it, but then I decided on OFF WITH THEIR HEADS his 1993 book. He writes one every year, I think. I walked to the counter to purchase it and then changed my mind. I don't need another book. I decided to listen to the talk and then go.
Morris was still swilling delectables inside the bus by 7:15 when Trish called with news that she had to work later than planned. As she was telling me about the intern that didn't finish the flyer he was supposed to make, Morris came riding up the escalator shorter than any man in the building, and paunchier than the sitdown FoxNews interviews would suggest. Trish kept talking and asked why I wasn't responding, not knowing that I was in a crowd of people and I didn't want to interrupt Dick who was only 15 to 20 feet away. He began apologizing for being late. The event was scheduled for 7pm but he told a radio audience 7:30 so he decided he would do two talks. I remember him saying 7 early that morning so he must have gotten confused on the drive home interview.
Dick Morris is uniquely interesting in these times as the man who worked for Clinton in the 1990s, but isn't a committed liberal. He spoke of the differences between Bill and Hilary and how people are angered that he's "against" the Clintons. He says it's not like he appreciates Jack and Bobby and doesn't like Ted. Bill and Hilary share no DNA. Morris slyly took credit for many Clinton accomplishments through the evening like Welfare Reform, earned income tax credit etc. But he also criticizes Bill for not prosecuting the War on Terror in the 90s. He thinks Bill is a great engaging guy who went into politics because he likes adulation and the warmth of crowds. Hilary he says is nothing but a socialist that wants to re-distribute wealth.
His main message though was Condi will run for President if we say we want her to run. He quotes Churchill who says that some people are born great, others strive to greatness, and some have greatness thrust on them. He also cited the Eisenhower example of a person who didn't actively run for office and didn't even say whether he was a Republican or Democrat and he won the New Hampshire primary anyway. He joked that No means No on a date, but not in politics.
His talk was shortened and he said he was going to sign some books, give a longer talk at 7:30 and then sign some more. Enough of what he said was interesting and the line wasn't long so I decided to buy a book for signature. I was about six people away from the signing when he decided to halt autographs and talk some more. This put me standing on the left hand side during his talk and as his eyes scanned the crowd, he made eye contact with me frequently. I couldn't figure out if I was the right height or just listening intently enough that I made a good anchor on that side of the room.
His talk was much the same as the first but he was relaxed far more the second time. He was more gregarious and he told more jokes and had a disarming laugh that made us all join in on several occasions. In the second talk he went on about Condi more and how we should form local groups to try and draft her for president. He seems to be using the book tour to promote a grass roots effort. He also told us that a radio caller had called him a Judas for what he did to the Clintons. He said that he never kissed Clinton. He laughed and we joined him.
He said the indictment against Tom Delay by Ronnie Earl was nonsense. All politicians do what Delay did. But he also thinks that Delay should be prosecuted for his gerrymadering that's ruining democracy. According to Morris, there are now only 20 competitive districts in the House of Representatives due to Delay. He asked me to hold up my copy of OFF WITH THEIR HEADS as said this earlier book would explain it better. He didn't mention that the current situation began when courts started gerrymandering districts to create black congressmen before the Republican takeover. That sucked out so many obvious voters that many Democrats had trouble keeping their once safe seats.
The best question came from a leftwing woman who said that she thought the war was immoral when children didn't have health insurance and the environment was so terrible. Another woman wanted to answer the woman and she started to say that her son just returned from Iraq and didn't agree, but Morris said that he would answer the question because it was his book signing.
He began by telling her that she had a lot of courage asking that question in this crowd and that he would personally ensure her security which brought a big laugh from the crowd. He explained that Saddam Hussein as far as genocidal maniacs was on of the worst in history and the war saved lives a freed an enslaved nation. There were no weapons of mass destruction, but everyone thought there were weapons. He said that Bill Clinton told him back in the 90s that Saddam had these weapons.
As far as health insurance, he and Clinton found $10 billion to ensure every kid in America and much of the money was sent back because states didn't need it all. He and Clinton also setup the earned income child credit so that every family would get enough money back to rise to over the poverty level. He was angry that John Edwards was proposing this in the last campaign when it's been law since the 1990s. Now on the environment he told the poor woman that Bush has been horrible and began to explain to us that global warming is making hurricanes worse and Bush won't address it. He said that if it weren't for the war he would oppose Bush because of his record here. It got to the heart of Morris' view on politics. In his world, every human crisis can be addressed through the political process. That the Earth is getting hotter and it has no human cause, doesn't mean that we cannot cool that darn thing down with enough legislation.
When he finished, the line began again and I got closer to having my OFF WITH THEIR HEADS inscribed. The gentleman two up handed Dick a large piece of paper currency and it seemed to surprise him. The guy wanted him to take the money for the draft Condi effort Morris had proposed. Dick explained that he could help by buying the book or he should take that money and form a club on his own. The guy left confused, I think. The girl in front of me told Dick that she was a socialist. I suppose she wanted a reaction considering that Dick had called Hilary one earlier. Instead, he said that she was about to get a Senator. Bernie Sanders of Vermont would no doubt be replacing Jim Jeffords.
When I got to the table he shook my hand and asked if I had been in the military, my hair being too long to be a current member. I guess I have that sort of look. I said no, but my dad was in the Army and I was born on a military base. He said that my dad had done a great thing. I guess it was a line he was dying to use on me before I let him down. I said that I enjoyed seeing him on FoxNews. His opinions were original and insightful. He thanked me and I asked what political books influenced him. He told me that if I wanted to run for office I should read his Machiavelli book. I said that I had seen it downstairs but I was interested in what books were an influence to him from a analytical perspective. He said that no book influenced him, it was his own experience in politics that taught him what he knows.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
SEPTEMBER MOVIES
JULES DASSIN FILM FESTIVAL
+ NIGHT AND THE CITY (1950) – Director Jules Dassin fled to England with the blacklist cold on his trail and he got to make this classic along the way. Richard Widmark is quite effective as the nightclub tout, petty crook, big dreamer hoping to make his fortune one way or the other. Gene Tierney is underutilized as his girlfriend. The rest of the cast is mostly British and therefore above average. There is nothing like the time period when men are chasing each other through allies wearing suits, ties and hard sole shoes. The DVD features a comparison of the British and American versions which ran different lengths and had different musical scores. The DVD also has Jules Dassin explaining the circumstances of making the film saying that he didn’t know he was making a film noir and didn’t even know the term until years later when he was making films in France. Dassin comes off as gentle old man and his explanation of the blacklist leaves out the part where he was an actual communist.
+ RIFIFI (1955) – Jules Dassin hops over to France for this heist film that Dassin insists wasn’t influenced by THE ASPHALT JUNGLE. Jean Servais (So that old Cubs catcher was French) stars as Tony Stephanos a thief just released from jail and isn’t ready to return. But then some dame lets him down and he says what the hell, let’s try one more caper. Joined by 3 companions, Stephanos comes up with a brilliant plan to knock over a jeweler in the middle of night. Everything goes well, but. . . This is a well done film that moves so well you forget the subtitles and focus on action. The theft itself is intricate and mostly silent. Dassin plays one of the thieves and does an apt job of direction.
NEVER ON SUNDAY (1960) – Jules Dassin makes it as far as Greece this time just barely evading the blacklist cops. The title is reference to a Greek prostitute, Illia (Melina Mercouri) that only dates men she likes and never on Sunday. Now the Sunday ban isn’t to worship God or even Joseph Stalin, but a way for her to have a party and invite all of her “friends” without the work thing getting in the way. Mercouri is quite vivacious and sexy, though a little fun-house scary in the face, but despite that or maybe because of it she was nominated for an academy award. Dassin casts himself as an American named “Homer” because his father loved everything about the Greek culture. Dassin comes off as a sitcomy Everett Sloan without the range. He speaks in English while much of the cast speaks in their native Greek. Illia speaks according to who she is talking to. Homer is excited to learn that Illia loves Greek tragedy, but horrified that she sees her own happy ending in each play. Therefore, Homer decides to become her teacher to suppress the carnal and develop her mind. It’s a decent enough idea on the Pygmalion premise, but it has none of the flair of Dassin’s film noir work.
TOPKAPI (1964) – Dassin had four years and only made it as far as Turkey, but he has American financing this time what with Joe McCarthy dead and Lyndon Johnson creating the Great Society. Shamefully, Dassin was much better on the run. This is considered some sort of parody of Riffifi with another caper planned this time for comedic effect. I seem to remember Hoffman and Beatty trying a spoof that worked about as well as this one in the late 80s. Since it’s so chic to be blacklisted and many never got the opportunity, Dassin is able to assemble a great cast of vicarious protestors, Maxmillian Schell, Peter Ustinov, and Robert Morley in addition to Melina Mercouri who had the decency to marry Dassin two years later. Now I thought smoking took its toll on Gene Tierney and Lana Turner, but Mercouri in four short years looks like she’d be better cast in front of a crystal ball telling Tony Nelson and Jeannie their future. Here she plays the closest thing the movie has to a romantic lead.
OTHER STUFF
NAME OF THE ROSE (1986) – Based on the Umberto Eco novel I wanted to read, but not before seeing the film. Sean Connery stars as the medieval sleuth monk William of Baskerville and Christian Slater his young novice. I suppose the Baskerville reference is supposed to make Connery a dark-age version of Sherlock Holmes. F Murray Abraham shows up in the last quarter as an inquisitor that’s tangled with Connery in the past. The mystery centers on Aristotle’s lost section of his Poetics dealing with Comedy that history knows as forgotten, but may just exist in this particular monastery. That plot alone would have been enough for a film, and therefore the Abraham character is more of a distraction because he becomes an added element rather than a solution to the mystery. I’m sure the novel was able to develop him a great deal, but here he seems extraneous.
PARIS, TEXAS (1983) Wim Wenders film written by Sam Shepherd about loss and redemption. Harry Dean Stanton and Dean Stockwell play brothers who’ve been apart since Stanton disappeared 4 years prior. The movie opens with Stanton found by a Texas doctor and Stockwell leaving L.A. to re-connect. Stockwell and his European wife (Aurore Clement) have been raising the son of Stanton and Natasja Kinski, who aptly plays southern rather than her natural European. It was the Ry Cooder score that brought my attention to the film and its accolades (It won the Palm d’Or), but at 2 ½ hours the first two hours seem to be a long prologue to the last 30 minutes which is quite compelling. Plenty of vistas of Texas early on that add to length. It makes a big deal about the tension between Stockwell and wife and the potential of losing their adopted son though it receives neither resolution nor comment by the end. The acting is good, but the unconventional non-Hollywood ending probably has as much to do with its praise as anything else.
BEYOND THE SEA (2004) – Very few straight-forward biopics these days. Much like Kevin Kline Cole Porter film, Da Lovely, Beyond the Sea stresses gimmick as much as life happenings. It’s nothing for Spacey to have conversation with the actor playing the younger version of himself. Spacey is interesting as Darin and Bosworth is appealing as Sandra Dee, but their relationship continues in the film past the historical fact which must have been a surprise to Darin’s next wife. It’s a movie that can be missed without any heartache.
SECRET HONOR (1984) – Phillip Baker Hall, the actor named like a dormitory stars as Dick Nixon in this one-character film. It was probably more poignant coming a decade after Watergate when recent history was still remembered. Hall is good, although he neither resembles nor sounds like Nixon. The script is a bit rambling as most one-character pieces are. Still it’s not an altogether bad 90 minutes. Robert Altman gets credit for trying to make films that others wouldn’t bother with.
ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1939) – This is only one of two Rathbone as Sherlock movies actually set in Victorian Times. They made 11 or so other films set in the 1940s. I liked the movies as a kid and tried it again here, but have since found the superiority of the Jeremy Brett BBC TV series. Ida Lupino shows up as the ingénue before smoking gave her that harsh voice and look.
ZERO EFFECT (1998) Bill Pullman stars as bizarre private eye with sidekick Ben Stiller as his legman. It’s another off-beat choice that I should have skipped. I was hooked by the private eye angle although Pullman is usually annoying. Pullman is annoying as expected. Stiller isn’t all that funny. I can hardly even remember the point looking back at it.
HOOP DREAMS (1994) – New to DVD and my first viewing since the theatre more than 10 years ago. With all of the straight to the air reality programs this is interesting because they shot it 4 years of footage before editing began. The commentary track is worthwhile because they explain how the picture came to be and how the circumstances on the characters lives changed their original plans. It began as 30-minute idea they hoped to land on PBS and became a 3 hour film. The shame of this transfer is that is was shot on video and then blown up to 35mm for the big screen. Why didn’t they just release the actual video on the DVD. The 35mm transfer back to video doesn’t look like film, but a muddy transfer.
MEDIUM COOL (1969) – Robert Forrester stars as a film cameraman for one of the local Chicago news stations during the summer of 1968. The Robert Kennedy assassination is dealt with as is the eventual notorious Democrat Convention that happened that year in Chicago. Haskell Wexler shot scenes of his movie during actual Vietnam protests so we get to see real National Guardsmen club the occasional hippy. The movie is quirky like many 60s films. Wexler tends toward the documentary approach with handheld camera and talking heads early on before it becomes more like a regular movie. It has an ad-libbed feel throughout and not much happens so there really is no way to end it easily. He decided on the full circle approach by mimicking the opening scene.
MAN IN THE GRAY FLANNEL SUIT (1956) – I read the novel last year and though it seems a bit predictable, it was an influential book in the 1950s when men were struggling with self-doubt during the post-war period. Though there is a tendency to always say that the book is better, this is a faithful and strong adaptation of the material leaving in all the main characters and many of the minor ones. The only real difference is how the movie reveals information in a slightly different order and how the wife reacts to the husband’s confession. Gregory Peck plays former Army captain struggling with the Manhattan rat race. Jennifer Jones plays the wife that doesn’t understand what the war did to her husband. Though tame by today’s standards, the subject matter of this film must have been courageous in its time. It didn’t need to be 150 minutes, but I suppose the war didn’t need to be four years. Where's my bomb, Oppenheimer?
KING CREOLE (1958) – Elvis is in his pre-Army rebellious era here and it ranks with his best performances although the plot is a bit preposterous. Elvis is denied graduation from high school for being late on the last day of class. With his father out-of-work, it’s up to the future king to go and make a living and since he can sing a little, he might just become a New Orleans nightclub sensation. The cast is first rate. Walter Mathau plays the owner of a rival club and the feared crime boss of the city. The other club owner is played by Paul Stewart from Citizen Kane. He also gets to romance the Elvis sister. Dean Jagger plays the father in such a old movie gee shucks way that you can't believe he co-exists in the same universe as hip Elvis. Young Vic Morrow plays the street hood that leads Elvis astray. In a convoluted plot that makes little sense when you scratch your head later, Mathau tries to blackmail Elvis to going to work for him. Elvis also gets a love triangle, an element where he’s somewhat responsible for an attack on his father, and redemption in the most unbelievable fashion. Directed by Michael Curtiz of Casablanca fame, this is considered by some to be the best Elvis movie ever made. I tend to like the underrated Loving You or Jailhouse Rock better.
IN GOOD COMPANY (2005) - The reliably good Dennis Quaid is demoted at work after a corporate takeover. His new boss is the winning Topher Grace, a decent guy who struggles because he isn’t cutthroat enough for his ambition. Scarlett Johanssen, a better than average flavor of the year, plays Quaid’s daughter who winds up in a secret romance with Grace. That crazy Phillip Baker Hall has a small role as a potential client of Quaid’s. Despite the deus ex machina, it’s a level above the sort of thing we usually expect from this kind of material.
THE MISSING (2003) – I give Ron Howard the benefit of the doubt even when I don’t like the trailer or plot outline for a film. He usually brings something extra to the table, but even he cannot save this PC statement masquerading as a film. Cate Blanchett plays a frontier “medicine woman” with a couple of illegitimate kids and a horny ranch hand that she refuses to marry. Up comes her father Tommy Lee Jones with his usual scowl dressed like an Indian because you see he left the family years ago, broke the mother’s heart, and settled with the red man and his ways. A good thing that Jones returns because the older daughter is kidnapped by a pack of outlaws and Indians that intend to sell their catch south of the border into some sort of slavery prostitution. Of course, Blanchett doesn’t forgive Jones at all and tells him so much right before the kidnapping, so that she has to eat those words when it turns out that he is the only other man on the frontier that can track the scoundrels that did this. The movie begins with heavy doses of Blanchett’s anachronistic Murphy Brown style feminism, but after the kidnapping, that’s mostly relegated to memory so that we can learn the Indian ways which include some blarney about Blanchett losing her hairbrush on the hunt and the bad Indians finding it so that they can put a curse on her. The curse is a wicked one, giving her a horrendous fever, but she is luckily saved by Tommy Lee Jones and his talisman cure. As usual the movie comes down to one of those showdowns where the invincible villains are beaten by the short stack.
JULES DASSIN FILM FESTIVAL
+ NIGHT AND THE CITY (1950) – Director Jules Dassin fled to England with the blacklist cold on his trail and he got to make this classic along the way. Richard Widmark is quite effective as the nightclub tout, petty crook, big dreamer hoping to make his fortune one way or the other. Gene Tierney is underutilized as his girlfriend. The rest of the cast is mostly British and therefore above average. There is nothing like the time period when men are chasing each other through allies wearing suits, ties and hard sole shoes. The DVD features a comparison of the British and American versions which ran different lengths and had different musical scores. The DVD also has Jules Dassin explaining the circumstances of making the film saying that he didn’t know he was making a film noir and didn’t even know the term until years later when he was making films in France. Dassin comes off as gentle old man and his explanation of the blacklist leaves out the part where he was an actual communist.
+ RIFIFI (1955) – Jules Dassin hops over to France for this heist film that Dassin insists wasn’t influenced by THE ASPHALT JUNGLE. Jean Servais (So that old Cubs catcher was French) stars as Tony Stephanos a thief just released from jail and isn’t ready to return. But then some dame lets him down and he says what the hell, let’s try one more caper. Joined by 3 companions, Stephanos comes up with a brilliant plan to knock over a jeweler in the middle of night. Everything goes well, but. . . This is a well done film that moves so well you forget the subtitles and focus on action. The theft itself is intricate and mostly silent. Dassin plays one of the thieves and does an apt job of direction.
NEVER ON SUNDAY (1960) – Jules Dassin makes it as far as Greece this time just barely evading the blacklist cops. The title is reference to a Greek prostitute, Illia (Melina Mercouri) that only dates men she likes and never on Sunday. Now the Sunday ban isn’t to worship God or even Joseph Stalin, but a way for her to have a party and invite all of her “friends” without the work thing getting in the way. Mercouri is quite vivacious and sexy, though a little fun-house scary in the face, but despite that or maybe because of it she was nominated for an academy award. Dassin casts himself as an American named “Homer” because his father loved everything about the Greek culture. Dassin comes off as a sitcomy Everett Sloan without the range. He speaks in English while much of the cast speaks in their native Greek. Illia speaks according to who she is talking to. Homer is excited to learn that Illia loves Greek tragedy, but horrified that she sees her own happy ending in each play. Therefore, Homer decides to become her teacher to suppress the carnal and develop her mind. It’s a decent enough idea on the Pygmalion premise, but it has none of the flair of Dassin’s film noir work.
TOPKAPI (1964) – Dassin had four years and only made it as far as Turkey, but he has American financing this time what with Joe McCarthy dead and Lyndon Johnson creating the Great Society. Shamefully, Dassin was much better on the run. This is considered some sort of parody of Riffifi with another caper planned this time for comedic effect. I seem to remember Hoffman and Beatty trying a spoof that worked about as well as this one in the late 80s. Since it’s so chic to be blacklisted and many never got the opportunity, Dassin is able to assemble a great cast of vicarious protestors, Maxmillian Schell, Peter Ustinov, and Robert Morley in addition to Melina Mercouri who had the decency to marry Dassin two years later. Now I thought smoking took its toll on Gene Tierney and Lana Turner, but Mercouri in four short years looks like she’d be better cast in front of a crystal ball telling Tony Nelson and Jeannie their future. Here she plays the closest thing the movie has to a romantic lead.
OTHER STUFF
NAME OF THE ROSE (1986) – Based on the Umberto Eco novel I wanted to read, but not before seeing the film. Sean Connery stars as the medieval sleuth monk William of Baskerville and Christian Slater his young novice. I suppose the Baskerville reference is supposed to make Connery a dark-age version of Sherlock Holmes. F Murray Abraham shows up in the last quarter as an inquisitor that’s tangled with Connery in the past. The mystery centers on Aristotle’s lost section of his Poetics dealing with Comedy that history knows as forgotten, but may just exist in this particular monastery. That plot alone would have been enough for a film, and therefore the Abraham character is more of a distraction because he becomes an added element rather than a solution to the mystery. I’m sure the novel was able to develop him a great deal, but here he seems extraneous.
PARIS, TEXAS (1983) Wim Wenders film written by Sam Shepherd about loss and redemption. Harry Dean Stanton and Dean Stockwell play brothers who’ve been apart since Stanton disappeared 4 years prior. The movie opens with Stanton found by a Texas doctor and Stockwell leaving L.A. to re-connect. Stockwell and his European wife (Aurore Clement) have been raising the son of Stanton and Natasja Kinski, who aptly plays southern rather than her natural European. It was the Ry Cooder score that brought my attention to the film and its accolades (It won the Palm d’Or), but at 2 ½ hours the first two hours seem to be a long prologue to the last 30 minutes which is quite compelling. Plenty of vistas of Texas early on that add to length. It makes a big deal about the tension between Stockwell and wife and the potential of losing their adopted son though it receives neither resolution nor comment by the end. The acting is good, but the unconventional non-Hollywood ending probably has as much to do with its praise as anything else.
BEYOND THE SEA (2004) – Very few straight-forward biopics these days. Much like Kevin Kline Cole Porter film, Da Lovely, Beyond the Sea stresses gimmick as much as life happenings. It’s nothing for Spacey to have conversation with the actor playing the younger version of himself. Spacey is interesting as Darin and Bosworth is appealing as Sandra Dee, but their relationship continues in the film past the historical fact which must have been a surprise to Darin’s next wife. It’s a movie that can be missed without any heartache.
SECRET HONOR (1984) – Phillip Baker Hall, the actor named like a dormitory stars as Dick Nixon in this one-character film. It was probably more poignant coming a decade after Watergate when recent history was still remembered. Hall is good, although he neither resembles nor sounds like Nixon. The script is a bit rambling as most one-character pieces are. Still it’s not an altogether bad 90 minutes. Robert Altman gets credit for trying to make films that others wouldn’t bother with.
ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1939) – This is only one of two Rathbone as Sherlock movies actually set in Victorian Times. They made 11 or so other films set in the 1940s. I liked the movies as a kid and tried it again here, but have since found the superiority of the Jeremy Brett BBC TV series. Ida Lupino shows up as the ingénue before smoking gave her that harsh voice and look.
ZERO EFFECT (1998) Bill Pullman stars as bizarre private eye with sidekick Ben Stiller as his legman. It’s another off-beat choice that I should have skipped. I was hooked by the private eye angle although Pullman is usually annoying. Pullman is annoying as expected. Stiller isn’t all that funny. I can hardly even remember the point looking back at it.
HOOP DREAMS (1994) – New to DVD and my first viewing since the theatre more than 10 years ago. With all of the straight to the air reality programs this is interesting because they shot it 4 years of footage before editing began. The commentary track is worthwhile because they explain how the picture came to be and how the circumstances on the characters lives changed their original plans. It began as 30-minute idea they hoped to land on PBS and became a 3 hour film. The shame of this transfer is that is was shot on video and then blown up to 35mm for the big screen. Why didn’t they just release the actual video on the DVD. The 35mm transfer back to video doesn’t look like film, but a muddy transfer.
MEDIUM COOL (1969) – Robert Forrester stars as a film cameraman for one of the local Chicago news stations during the summer of 1968. The Robert Kennedy assassination is dealt with as is the eventual notorious Democrat Convention that happened that year in Chicago. Haskell Wexler shot scenes of his movie during actual Vietnam protests so we get to see real National Guardsmen club the occasional hippy. The movie is quirky like many 60s films. Wexler tends toward the documentary approach with handheld camera and talking heads early on before it becomes more like a regular movie. It has an ad-libbed feel throughout and not much happens so there really is no way to end it easily. He decided on the full circle approach by mimicking the opening scene.
MAN IN THE GRAY FLANNEL SUIT (1956) – I read the novel last year and though it seems a bit predictable, it was an influential book in the 1950s when men were struggling with self-doubt during the post-war period. Though there is a tendency to always say that the book is better, this is a faithful and strong adaptation of the material leaving in all the main characters and many of the minor ones. The only real difference is how the movie reveals information in a slightly different order and how the wife reacts to the husband’s confession. Gregory Peck plays former Army captain struggling with the Manhattan rat race. Jennifer Jones plays the wife that doesn’t understand what the war did to her husband. Though tame by today’s standards, the subject matter of this film must have been courageous in its time. It didn’t need to be 150 minutes, but I suppose the war didn’t need to be four years. Where's my bomb, Oppenheimer?
KING CREOLE (1958) – Elvis is in his pre-Army rebellious era here and it ranks with his best performances although the plot is a bit preposterous. Elvis is denied graduation from high school for being late on the last day of class. With his father out-of-work, it’s up to the future king to go and make a living and since he can sing a little, he might just become a New Orleans nightclub sensation. The cast is first rate. Walter Mathau plays the owner of a rival club and the feared crime boss of the city. The other club owner is played by Paul Stewart from Citizen Kane. He also gets to romance the Elvis sister. Dean Jagger plays the father in such a old movie gee shucks way that you can't believe he co-exists in the same universe as hip Elvis. Young Vic Morrow plays the street hood that leads Elvis astray. In a convoluted plot that makes little sense when you scratch your head later, Mathau tries to blackmail Elvis to going to work for him. Elvis also gets a love triangle, an element where he’s somewhat responsible for an attack on his father, and redemption in the most unbelievable fashion. Directed by Michael Curtiz of Casablanca fame, this is considered by some to be the best Elvis movie ever made. I tend to like the underrated Loving You or Jailhouse Rock better.
IN GOOD COMPANY (2005) - The reliably good Dennis Quaid is demoted at work after a corporate takeover. His new boss is the winning Topher Grace, a decent guy who struggles because he isn’t cutthroat enough for his ambition. Scarlett Johanssen, a better than average flavor of the year, plays Quaid’s daughter who winds up in a secret romance with Grace. That crazy Phillip Baker Hall has a small role as a potential client of Quaid’s. Despite the deus ex machina, it’s a level above the sort of thing we usually expect from this kind of material.
THE MISSING (2003) – I give Ron Howard the benefit of the doubt even when I don’t like the trailer or plot outline for a film. He usually brings something extra to the table, but even he cannot save this PC statement masquerading as a film. Cate Blanchett plays a frontier “medicine woman” with a couple of illegitimate kids and a horny ranch hand that she refuses to marry. Up comes her father Tommy Lee Jones with his usual scowl dressed like an Indian because you see he left the family years ago, broke the mother’s heart, and settled with the red man and his ways. A good thing that Jones returns because the older daughter is kidnapped by a pack of outlaws and Indians that intend to sell their catch south of the border into some sort of slavery prostitution. Of course, Blanchett doesn’t forgive Jones at all and tells him so much right before the kidnapping, so that she has to eat those words when it turns out that he is the only other man on the frontier that can track the scoundrels that did this. The movie begins with heavy doses of Blanchett’s anachronistic Murphy Brown style feminism, but after the kidnapping, that’s mostly relegated to memory so that we can learn the Indian ways which include some blarney about Blanchett losing her hairbrush on the hunt and the bad Indians finding it so that they can put a curse on her. The curse is a wicked one, giving her a horrendous fever, but she is luckily saved by Tommy Lee Jones and his talisman cure. As usual the movie comes down to one of those showdowns where the invincible villains are beaten by the short stack.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
+BROWN BUNNY (2003) - (A Movie Review)
Roger Ebert hated the 120 minute version of Brown Bunny that debuted at festivals in 2003, but he gave the 90 minute re-edit three stars despite some reservations. I personally found it more interesting than Vincent Gallo’s directorial debut,
Gallo looks like a street hood straight from central casting and therefore Gallo the director uses that image to give the audience the wrong impression of the main character. He looks dangerous like young Marlon Brando on the outside, but he’s Jimmy Stewart on the inside. The action in both Gallo movies is the slow peeling away of the Brando for the Stewart. He likes to do that with his real-life image as well. Gallo has been on record several times saying that he is a Republican. He’s even attended events with Jenna Bush.
But the sex scene at the end of Brown Bunny is the most graphic thing I’ve ever seen between 2 mainstream actors. So is Gallo being ironic or contradictory or just enigmatic? Since being a Democrat in that community is the most conformist choice you could make, I think Gallo is asking his audience which choice is more provocative. I mean what’s a more avant-garde these days than identifying with George W. Bush? And when you can identify with Bush but make “open-minded” critics like Roger Ebert blush at the sexual content, you are really blazing a unique trail. Whatever Gallo’s actual politics, he’s certainly demonstrating that he wants to be a maverick.
BROWN BUNNY is mostly silent with intermittent dialogue to break things up. I liked the pace quite a bit and felt that the payoff tied the character’s actions together rather well. Some critics howled at what they considered an overly simple meaning, but most heart-wrenching events of real life are rather simple if you think about it.
Director Todd Haynes was lavishly praised for his Douglas Sirk rip-off FAR FROM HEAVEN by playing into our egos as open-minded individuals. It was well-made with good performances, but neither challenging nor surprising, though it was treated by critics as some sort of revelation. Critics love to pat themselves on the back and it’s a most comforting movie in a politically correct age. Gallo has made the antithesis of that effort, a movie that makes you feel uncomfortable before reminding you of the simple human yearnings that mirror real life much more than the “realism” critics usually praise. I liked it enough to watch it again the next night when Trish got back into town.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
PAUL McCARTNEY IN CONCERT (Review of his 9-17-05 performance in Tampa, FL)
Paul McCartney ended the US leg of his 2002 tour in Florida and in 2005, he began here. I hadn’t thought that would be significant, but McCartney and band were so sharp in Tampa in 2002 that it was a phenomenal experience. So much so, that I talked Brother John into driving down to Fort Lauderdale to see him again. Now neither Sir Saunders nor I had ever seen him in concert before, so that would certainly lead to good feelings, but the second time in South Florida was maybe even a bit better, it was certainly no worse. Last night the band seemed a bit off and since it was only the second night of the tour it played more like an extended rehearsal.
Later when a portion of centerstage lowered so that the crew could roll a piano on, Paul was still unsure enough of his blocking that he accidently rode it down to the bottom joking that it got a big enough laugh that maybe he would keep that gag in the show.
Last time the show began with a sort of operatic costume procession through the audience. He must have had 50 people dressed and marching up to the stage. It didn’t serve much purpose but it gave us something to look at while people took their seats. This time it began with a DJ on stage playing dance versions of more obscure McCartney solo efforts. From there it showed an interesting biography of Paul beginning with air raids over Liverpool when Paul was born. I had never thought about how being born during the war might have shaped all the Beatles and their surroundings. The problem with the documentary was that the sound was too loud to the point of distortion in places. The speakers were geared to rev up over the crowd noise during music, but the fans were quiet here and the knob was on eleven.
McCartney and band began the concert with MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR which is a good number but it seemed a bit flat. It certainly didn’t match his introduction last time with HELLO/GOODBYE. His second song was a poor choice too, something from the album released on Tuesday that no one has heard. The crowd wasn’t quite invigorated enough by MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR and it brought them down having to listen next to something that they didn’t know.
It’s interesting what Paul chooses to sing considering he has such a wide catalog. How many singers could play 2 ½ hours and not get to some of their #1 hits? Of course, I can understand his not wanting to play SAY, SAY, SAY and EBONY AND IVORY. But on neither tour did he play UNCLE ALBERT/ADMIRAL HALSEY, SILLY LOVE SONGS or WITH A LITTLE LUCK. Thankfully, he played one of my non-charting favorites both times, LET ME ROLL IT.
He tried a few “new” old songs this time among them the interesting “TOO MANY PEOPLE” from the underrated RAM album. He also did “HELTER SKLETER” during the second encore. I had read that those two songs were at the top of a poll of what fans wanted to hear him play.
During his playing of the melodic “I WILL” he accidently skipped ahead and sang
“Love you whenever we're together
Love you when we'r e apart”,
before singing
“Love you forever, and for ever
Love you with all my heart”
He stopped himself before the second verse and joked that he wrote the song a long time ago.
He also explained that the last shuttle crew was awoken with the song “GOOD DAY SUNSHINE” on the day of their return. He played the intro audio from ground control leading into his playing the tune himself. After the song he said very boyishly proud way, “Imagine if they chose your song to play to the astronauts.” Songs like GOOD DAY SUNSHINE really separated Paul from the hippy part of the 60s. Sure he did his experimenting like the rest of them, but his life affirmative songs were really in direct contrast to a more ambivalent culture.
I was also happy to hear “GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE” a song that actually charted 5 years after the band broke up. I can easily imagine that an average sixties band could have made a whole career out of a song like that, much like the RASCALS did with “GOOD LOVIN’.” Here it’s one more in the catalog.
We all have our tastes. The first Beatles album I had was the 20 Greatest Hits and I played it over and over. So now I’m more tired of the big songs and yearn for the obscure stuff. Still, I could hear songs like GET BACK and LET IT BE endlessly, but PENNY LANE, ELEANOR RIGBY and LONG AND WINDING ROAD get boring to me. Even YESTERDAY wears thin with me nowadays.
He didn’t plan a lot of early British Invasion tunes this time. We did hear PLEASE, PLEASE ME and I’ll GET YOU though. He also sang that cover from the Music Man, “’Til there was you.” explaining that he use to sing it in Cabaret clubs long ago. He also sang a cover of what he called the first recorded Beatles song that predated even Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe. I don’t remember the name though I have heard someone else sing it. The band contained a guy named Duff that I had never heard of and another guy I didn’t remember.
DRIVE MY CAR was the only number from RUBBER SOUL album, but I guess that record was dominated by Lennon songs like IN MY LIFE and NORWEGIAN WOOD.
He seems to love his work from REVOLVER because we heard FOR NO ONE in addition to RIGBY, GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE, and GOOD DAY SUNSHINE.
He’s 63 now so I wonder what singing a song like WHEN I’M 64 is like for him. He didn’t try it last night.
A few moments reached the heights of 2002, including HEY JUDE where Paul has the crowd sing the chorus. It’s amazing that so many people singing together can sound that good. I thought the biggest crowd pleaser was BAND ON THE RUN, especially the change from “If we ever get out of here” to “The rain exploded with a mighty crash.” That change brought people to their feet including me.
The concert ended the same way as the previous one with the reprise of SGT PEPPER and THE END from Abbey Road. After the standing ovation, Paul went to the mic and said “See you Next Time.”
Having seen him twice already I wasn’t committed to going again this time. The concert sold out the first day and I didn’t get any tickets. I did win some on an EBAY auction in May, but the cheep chiseler didn’t send the tickets. I had to go through PAY PAL to get a refund minus $25. I decided that it was probably a sign that I didn’t need to hear him again. About a week ago, fellow McCartney fan, James Cheshire told me that rumors were circulating that he was going to sing some non-Paul Beatles songs. That became an intriguing reason to see the concert. I thought that hearing Paul sing things like TICKET TO RIDE, HELP, COME TOGETHER, WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM FRIENDS or YELLOW SUBMARINE would be unique. Of course, the rumors about the play list were unfounded, but I did get a heck of deal on tickets.
I had originally won two seats in the third deck. It was far enough behind the stage that I wouldn’t have been able to see the screen. I was lucky he was a crook. This time I bought the tickets in an EBAY fire sale the day before the concert and got seats in the first deck with a good view of everything. The seller really took a bath on them. I paid $142 (about the same price as the others) for a pair of tickets that cost over $300 face value if you count the convenience charge and taxes.
I go through periods of listening to music, but unlike most people I know, I go through periods of being tired of music for long stretches. At certain times of year, I’ll forgo music entirely to watch movies and listen to talk radio. I don’t go to concerts very often. I’ve seen 5 or 6 (when I wasn’t working it) in my life and I haven’t been to one since McCartney last played here. My going to see McCartney in concert is like how people who avoid art museums might change their minds to see a touring Van Gogh exhibit. Or like how my friend Dan, though hostile to basketball bought tickets to see Michael Jordan’s last game in Orlando. People make exceptions to their usual rules when greatness is involved.
Although, I liked the 2002 concert better, I would recommend seeing this tour as it comes through America this year. It might be the last chance to see one of the greatest artists of the 20th century.
Paul McCartney ended the US leg of his 2002 tour in Florida and in 2005, he began here. I hadn’t thought that would be significant, but McCartney and band were so sharp in Tampa in 2002 that it was a phenomenal experience. So much so, that I talked Brother John into driving down to Fort Lauderdale to see him again. Now neither Sir Saunders nor I had ever seen him in concert before, so that would certainly lead to good feelings, but the second time in South Florida was maybe even a bit better, it was certainly no worse. Last night the band seemed a bit off and since it was only the second night of the tour it played more like an extended rehearsal.
Later when a portion of centerstage lowered so that the crew could roll a piano on, Paul was still unsure enough of his blocking that he accidently rode it down to the bottom joking that it got a big enough laugh that maybe he would keep that gag in the show.
Last time the show began with a sort of operatic costume procession through the audience. He must have had 50 people dressed and marching up to the stage. It didn’t serve much purpose but it gave us something to look at while people took their seats. This time it began with a DJ on stage playing dance versions of more obscure McCartney solo efforts. From there it showed an interesting biography of Paul beginning with air raids over Liverpool when Paul was born. I had never thought about how being born during the war might have shaped all the Beatles and their surroundings. The problem with the documentary was that the sound was too loud to the point of distortion in places. The speakers were geared to rev up over the crowd noise during music, but the fans were quiet here and the knob was on eleven.
McCartney and band began the concert with MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR which is a good number but it seemed a bit flat. It certainly didn’t match his introduction last time with HELLO/GOODBYE. His second song was a poor choice too, something from the album released on Tuesday that no one has heard. The crowd wasn’t quite invigorated enough by MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR and it brought them down having to listen next to something that they didn’t know.
It’s interesting what Paul chooses to sing considering he has such a wide catalog. How many singers could play 2 ½ hours and not get to some of their #1 hits? Of course, I can understand his not wanting to play SAY, SAY, SAY and EBONY AND IVORY. But on neither tour did he play UNCLE ALBERT/ADMIRAL HALSEY, SILLY LOVE SONGS or WITH A LITTLE LUCK. Thankfully, he played one of my non-charting favorites both times, LET ME ROLL IT.
He tried a few “new” old songs this time among them the interesting “TOO MANY PEOPLE” from the underrated RAM album. He also did “HELTER SKLETER” during the second encore. I had read that those two songs were at the top of a poll of what fans wanted to hear him play.
During his playing of the melodic “I WILL” he accidently skipped ahead and sang
“Love you whenever we're together
Love you when we'r e apart”,
before singing
“Love you forever, and for ever
Love you with all my heart”
He stopped himself before the second verse and joked that he wrote the song a long time ago.
He also explained that the last shuttle crew was awoken with the song “GOOD DAY SUNSHINE” on the day of their return. He played the intro audio from ground control leading into his playing the tune himself. After the song he said very boyishly proud way, “Imagine if they chose your song to play to the astronauts.” Songs like GOOD DAY SUNSHINE really separated Paul from the hippy part of the 60s. Sure he did his experimenting like the rest of them, but his life affirmative songs were really in direct contrast to a more ambivalent culture.
I was also happy to hear “GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE” a song that actually charted 5 years after the band broke up. I can easily imagine that an average sixties band could have made a whole career out of a song like that, much like the RASCALS did with “GOOD LOVIN’.” Here it’s one more in the catalog.
We all have our tastes. The first Beatles album I had was the 20 Greatest Hits and I played it over and over. So now I’m more tired of the big songs and yearn for the obscure stuff. Still, I could hear songs like GET BACK and LET IT BE endlessly, but PENNY LANE, ELEANOR RIGBY and LONG AND WINDING ROAD get boring to me. Even YESTERDAY wears thin with me nowadays.
He didn’t plan a lot of early British Invasion tunes this time. We did hear PLEASE, PLEASE ME and I’ll GET YOU though. He also sang that cover from the Music Man, “’Til there was you.” explaining that he use to sing it in Cabaret clubs long ago. He also sang a cover of what he called the first recorded Beatles song that predated even Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe. I don’t remember the name though I have heard someone else sing it. The band contained a guy named Duff that I had never heard of and another guy I didn’t remember.
DRIVE MY CAR was the only number from RUBBER SOUL album, but I guess that record was dominated by Lennon songs like IN MY LIFE and NORWEGIAN WOOD.
He seems to love his work from REVOLVER because we heard FOR NO ONE in addition to RIGBY, GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE, and GOOD DAY SUNSHINE.
He’s 63 now so I wonder what singing a song like WHEN I’M 64 is like for him. He didn’t try it last night.
A few moments reached the heights of 2002, including HEY JUDE where Paul has the crowd sing the chorus. It’s amazing that so many people singing together can sound that good. I thought the biggest crowd pleaser was BAND ON THE RUN, especially the change from “If we ever get out of here” to “The rain exploded with a mighty crash.” That change brought people to their feet including me.
The concert ended the same way as the previous one with the reprise of SGT PEPPER and THE END from Abbey Road. After the standing ovation, Paul went to the mic and said “See you Next Time.”
Having seen him twice already I wasn’t committed to going again this time. The concert sold out the first day and I didn’t get any tickets. I did win some on an EBAY auction in May, but the cheep chiseler didn’t send the tickets. I had to go through PAY PAL to get a refund minus $25. I decided that it was probably a sign that I didn’t need to hear him again. About a week ago, fellow McCartney fan, James Cheshire told me that rumors were circulating that he was going to sing some non-Paul Beatles songs. That became an intriguing reason to see the concert. I thought that hearing Paul sing things like TICKET TO RIDE, HELP, COME TOGETHER, WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM FRIENDS or YELLOW SUBMARINE would be unique. Of course, the rumors about the play list were unfounded, but I did get a heck of deal on tickets.
I had originally won two seats in the third deck. It was far enough behind the stage that I wouldn’t have been able to see the screen. I was lucky he was a crook. This time I bought the tickets in an EBAY fire sale the day before the concert and got seats in the first deck with a good view of everything. The seller really took a bath on them. I paid $142 (about the same price as the others) for a pair of tickets that cost over $300 face value if you count the convenience charge and taxes.
I go through periods of listening to music, but unlike most people I know, I go through periods of being tired of music for long stretches. At certain times of year, I’ll forgo music entirely to watch movies and listen to talk radio. I don’t go to concerts very often. I’ve seen 5 or 6 (when I wasn’t working it) in my life and I haven’t been to one since McCartney last played here. My going to see McCartney in concert is like how people who avoid art museums might change their minds to see a touring Van Gogh exhibit. Or like how my friend Dan, though hostile to basketball bought tickets to see Michael Jordan’s last game in Orlando. People make exceptions to their usual rules when greatness is involved.
Although, I liked the 2002 concert better, I would recommend seeing this tour as it comes through America this year. It might be the last chance to see one of the greatest artists of the 20th century.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
STAR WARS III: Revenge of the Sith (2005) - A movie Review
This is the only film that I have seen in the theatre this summer and although I saw it way back in June, and I enjoyed it more than the first two, I've since been troubled by it's meaning as it relates to the series.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most revealing thing about this final film is what wasted opportunity this whole series was. It’s the best entry in the new trilogy, but that’s only because George Lucas actually uses the background material we’re familiar with and he has fewer opportunities to expand and revise his vision. You can forgive ridiculous ideas like Chewbacca being a pal of Yoda in Episode III, but it’s hard to forgive the series when you realize how far he has strayed from the original material with the first two episodes.
Lucas was once a young filmmaker struggling to become somebody and that struggle is embodied in the Luke Skywalker character from the first trilogy. Mark Hamill isn’t a great actor, but he's an earnest one and his struggle to overcome was gripping for three films. Lucas can no longer identify with Luke’s struggle to find himself. You need to understand self-doubt to write that character. Now Lucas is a man that has made some of the biggest box office successes of all time and the only holdout to his greatness are film critics and the Academy Awards. So Annakin’s struggle is not finding his place in the world but being recognized for his greatness by the Jedi counsel.
Luke’s struggle was man v. self while Annakin’s struggle is more man v. society. Lucas had an inherent understanding of the first conflict and we the middle class filmgoers could identify readily. Unlike Orson Welles who could show you the greatness of the character struggling against society, Lucas shows you a sniveling brat that’s whining and he has to remind you with dialogue of how he’s the “chosen one” because he can’t show you any greatness. The plot shows the one great character to be Obi-Wan Kenobi, but the dialogue wants us to believe Annakin is more important. The ending of this movie should be tragic with the supposedly “great” Annakin being forced into the dark side. The ending of Jedi with Vader finding his inner goodness is now hollow because we didn’t see any deepness in this current trilogy. His motivations are all selfish.
Had this second trilogy been produced immediately after JEDI, it might have retained something from the early films. The harbinger for these last three can be seen in the Special Edition films from the late 90s when Lucas re-edited episode IV to have the Greedo character shoot at Han Solo before he’s smoked. Besides the fact that there is no way Greedo could miss Solo shooting him at point blank range, it’s most significant because it changes the whole complex nature of Solo’s character. The point before was that Solo was a rogue that would do anything to avoid the arm of Jabba and he entered into the deal with Ben and Luke to pay off his debt to the mob boss. He slowly comes around in the series to see himself as part of a larger community. This is a character of the greatest tradition in American film, played most effectively by people like Humphrey Bogart in CASABLANCA. By changing that one thing in the first film, Solo’s character has no where to grow. Now it’s just a matter of time before Solo stops the big talk and signs on with the rebellion.
This new trilogy misses those two elements, the young man’s struggle with self-doubt and the rogue’s gradual realization that he belongs in a community of like minded individuals. The only real theme I can identify is the danger of unrecognized genius. That’s the most self-indulgent and boring choice a filmmaker could choose, but I don’t think he consciously chose it, rather I think that these new screenplays were an outpouring of his current auto-biography and that became the most consistent theme of his current life.
Like many, I had longed that he would continue this story someday, but his break after Jedi was detrimental to his thinking on these characters and the meaning of the story overall. He no longer identifies with the characters he created in the mid 70s and is in some ways he’s embarrassed by them. It shows in the inconsistencies and changing motivations in the two series. The larger part of Episode III should have really been episode I with the more stories to follow to flesh out Annakin’s fall.
Now Lucas is done making Star Wars films and rather than explain more of the universe that meant so much to many of us in our youth, he has muddied the whole thing. He says he won’t re-release the old version ever again. These wretched SE versions are now considered the definitive work. Choices like the insertion of cartoon Jabba in episode one and Han’s emasculating are now the new “truths.” It’s like Van Gogh lived to be 80 and went back and painted modern looking clothing on his authentic period subjects.
It’s a loss to those who will read about the importance of Star Wars in 1970s cinema, but will never actually get to see the movies that we saw. Orson Welles was once quoted as saying he wanted Ted Turner to keep his crayons off his films, although Turner never eradicated the original version of any movie. Lucas owns the Star Wars films and can cut them up and throw them into the fireplace if he likes, but it’s a weak choice to not let your original work stand as a testament of the time. I now wish Lucas would have been as tired of STAR WARS as Sean Connery was of James Bond. Too bad that we couldn’t imagine how great the films might have been rather than live with the reality that lightning didn’t strike twice except if you mean it burned down everything the original films stood for.
This is the only film that I have seen in the theatre this summer and although I saw it way back in June, and I enjoyed it more than the first two, I've since been troubled by it's meaning as it relates to the series.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most revealing thing about this final film is what wasted opportunity this whole series was. It’s the best entry in the new trilogy, but that’s only because George Lucas actually uses the background material we’re familiar with and he has fewer opportunities to expand and revise his vision. You can forgive ridiculous ideas like Chewbacca being a pal of Yoda in Episode III, but it’s hard to forgive the series when you realize how far he has strayed from the original material with the first two episodes.
Lucas was once a young filmmaker struggling to become somebody and that struggle is embodied in the Luke Skywalker character from the first trilogy. Mark Hamill isn’t a great actor, but he's an earnest one and his struggle to overcome was gripping for three films. Lucas can no longer identify with Luke’s struggle to find himself. You need to understand self-doubt to write that character. Now Lucas is a man that has made some of the biggest box office successes of all time and the only holdout to his greatness are film critics and the Academy Awards. So Annakin’s struggle is not finding his place in the world but being recognized for his greatness by the Jedi counsel.
Luke’s struggle was man v. self while Annakin’s struggle is more man v. society. Lucas had an inherent understanding of the first conflict and we the middle class filmgoers could identify readily. Unlike Orson Welles who could show you the greatness of the character struggling against society, Lucas shows you a sniveling brat that’s whining and he has to remind you with dialogue of how he’s the “chosen one” because he can’t show you any greatness. The plot shows the one great character to be Obi-Wan Kenobi, but the dialogue wants us to believe Annakin is more important. The ending of this movie should be tragic with the supposedly “great” Annakin being forced into the dark side. The ending of Jedi with Vader finding his inner goodness is now hollow because we didn’t see any deepness in this current trilogy. His motivations are all selfish.
Had this second trilogy been produced immediately after JEDI, it might have retained something from the early films. The harbinger for these last three can be seen in the Special Edition films from the late 90s when Lucas re-edited episode IV to have the Greedo character shoot at Han Solo before he’s smoked. Besides the fact that there is no way Greedo could miss Solo shooting him at point blank range, it’s most significant because it changes the whole complex nature of Solo’s character. The point before was that Solo was a rogue that would do anything to avoid the arm of Jabba and he entered into the deal with Ben and Luke to pay off his debt to the mob boss. He slowly comes around in the series to see himself as part of a larger community. This is a character of the greatest tradition in American film, played most effectively by people like Humphrey Bogart in CASABLANCA. By changing that one thing in the first film, Solo’s character has no where to grow. Now it’s just a matter of time before Solo stops the big talk and signs on with the rebellion.
This new trilogy misses those two elements, the young man’s struggle with self-doubt and the rogue’s gradual realization that he belongs in a community of like minded individuals. The only real theme I can identify is the danger of unrecognized genius. That’s the most self-indulgent and boring choice a filmmaker could choose, but I don’t think he consciously chose it, rather I think that these new screenplays were an outpouring of his current auto-biography and that became the most consistent theme of his current life.
Like many, I had longed that he would continue this story someday, but his break after Jedi was detrimental to his thinking on these characters and the meaning of the story overall. He no longer identifies with the characters he created in the mid 70s and is in some ways he’s embarrassed by them. It shows in the inconsistencies and changing motivations in the two series. The larger part of Episode III should have really been episode I with the more stories to follow to flesh out Annakin’s fall.
Now Lucas is done making Star Wars films and rather than explain more of the universe that meant so much to many of us in our youth, he has muddied the whole thing. He says he won’t re-release the old version ever again. These wretched SE versions are now considered the definitive work. Choices like the insertion of cartoon Jabba in episode one and Han’s emasculating are now the new “truths.” It’s like Van Gogh lived to be 80 and went back and painted modern looking clothing on his authentic period subjects.
It’s a loss to those who will read about the importance of Star Wars in 1970s cinema, but will never actually get to see the movies that we saw. Orson Welles was once quoted as saying he wanted Ted Turner to keep his crayons off his films, although Turner never eradicated the original version of any movie. Lucas owns the Star Wars films and can cut them up and throw them into the fireplace if he likes, but it’s a weak choice to not let your original work stand as a testament of the time. I now wish Lucas would have been as tired of STAR WARS as Sean Connery was of James Bond. Too bad that we couldn’t imagine how great the films might have been rather than live with the reality that lightning didn’t strike twice except if you mean it burned down everything the original films stood for.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
MOVIES REVIEWS CATCHUP
I am way behind in posting my reviews. Some of these date back to May. I haven't posted a book review on Amazon since January. Taking a leadership spot at work has certainly curtailed my criticism writing.
Since Netflix has allowed me to create my own mini film festivals, Ill start with a recent creation.
JAMES STEWART-ANTHONY MANN WESTERNS
WINCHESTER ’73 (1950) – This is the first entry and the only B/W. The story centers on a rare rifle that everyone wants and a character called Dutch Henry Brown that Stewart wants to kill. There are some great moments and the psychological elements that made the series famous are also present. It was unusual in contemporary westerns that a hero like Stewart would proclaim that he wants to kill someone, but it’s still a bit stuck in other conventional Western patterns nonetheless. The New York sounding Dan Duryea plays a cold blooded killer. Rock Hudson plays an Indian chief. Tony Curtis can be seen somewhere. The underrated character actor John McIntire has a small role and he would turn up as the heavy in a later installment.
BEND OF THE RIVER (1952) – It develops early as a buddy film between Stewart and Arthur Kennedy two guys that share a similar past as gun fighters. The two volunteer to help some settlers get provisions to their new homestead. Stewart shows that ill reputes can be redeemed while Arthur Kennedy shows that it’s not always so. Rock Hudson gets a bigger role as a gambler that pitches in against the villains. The relationships here are bit clumsy. I have trouble believing Kennedy would turn his back on Stewart while the Rock Hudson character seems a little too ambiguous leading up to the conclusion.
THE FAR COUNTRY (1955) – This is my favorite of the series. McIntire plays the heavy and Walter Brennan plays Stewart’s sidekick. There’s also a love triangle with Stewart on either side of the worldly Ruth Roman and the naïve Corrine Calvet. Stewart seems the most torn between morality and self-determinism here and that’s the theme of the whole series looking back. I heard a critic once say that Stewart was more in touch with his anger than any prominent American actor in the history of film. It‘s his anger in this series that’s so unusual for leading men and Stewart in general. There’s a look in his eyes that says temporary insanity.
The series also includes THE NAKED SPUR (not on DVD) and MAN FROM LARAMIE (which I couldn’t get to play in my machine). Either could be the best of the series. I've seen snipets of both on AMC through the years.
ONES I SHOULD I HAVE SEEN BEFORE NOW
DO THE RIGHT THING (1989) – Spike Lee makes better movies than his militant persona leads on. For instance, Danny Aillleo is much more sympathetic than you’d expect a white character to be. Spike even makes his own character ambivalent rather than heroic. The movie has some really good performances by the likes of Ossie Davis and John Turturro, but still the movie gets too much credit overall. Spike sets up a believable story of hot summertime Brooklyn and even the eventual riot that ensues makes dramatic sense, but the epilogue between Lee and Aiello rings so false that it spoils the realism that led up to it. Lee wants the audience to forgive the mob violence that ruined Aiello’s pizza joint with the reasoning that Aiello is insured. That it never seemed to be about money to Aiello is conveniently ignored so that the people who started the riot can be forgiven without consequences.
F FOR FAKE (1973) – The last completed movie directed by Orson Welles is many times interesting but too fragmented to make a cohesive whole. He’s great to see on camera, funny and mischievous. His voice over line readings have always been the gold standard. The movie breaks down into two parts. The first is the study of famous fakers and the second is Welles own fraud to bring the film to feature length. It’s a shame that Welles didn’t helm a commercial film in the 1960s to keep his directing career alive. Nobody could have done better with this material than Welles and yet style can’t always make up for substance.
+ ADVISE AND CONSENT (1962) – Otto Preminger directed film based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Alan Drury. Charles Laughton’s last film is a great example of his uniqueness in film history. Laughton was one of the few homely character actors to attain leading role status due to his incredible talent alone. Dude’s recent comparison to P.S. Hoffman is apt. I once thought that Gary Oldman was taking on the Laughton mantle, but he’s more chameleon like while Laughton could never disguise that mug. The center of the story is the ailing Democrat President wanting to name the controversial Henry Fonda as his new Secretary of State. Laughton is the southern Democrat opposed to the nomination. The story takes on a number of twists and the supporting characters, Walter Pidgeon, Peter Lawford and Burgess Meredith are well cast. Like George Stevens, Preminger hasn’t been given due credit for his body of work.
BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING (1965) is probably Preminger last decent film. Here an American brother and sister relocate to England to with the sister’s young daughter. Soon after the film begins, the sister’s daughter comes up missing and it’s up to English detective Lawrence Olivier to find the daughter or discover is she ever even existed. Since the audience has never seen her, we are given reason to wonder the same thing. Like 80% of all films that begin well, you have to forgive the disjointed ending a little.
RECENT FILMS
THE FORGOTTEN (2004) – This is not quite a remake of Bunny Lake, but it does share the story of the missing daughter that no one believes exists. From there is heads into otherworldly territory that might intrigue Dude and his recent studies. The trailer doesn’t give this part of the movie away. Good character actors, Alfre Woodard, Gary Sinise, and Anthony Edwards help make this a little better than the average genre picture.
HOSTAGE (2005) - I like Bruce Willis enough to watch his average action films hoping for another DIE HARD. He made his money in films like this, but movies like PULP FICTION, SIXTH SENSE and even NOBODY’S FOOL show his range much better. This is full of the petty villains that grow more psychotic, the authorities that are clueless and the big overarching super villains that always keep their poise. While entertaining enough at the time, you’ll forget it by the end of your next meal.
KINSEY (2004) – Commentators have always treated Kinsey as a pretty straight-laced guy in real life, but the filmmakers make him out to be a pervert by modern standards and a freak by the standards of his time. Interestingly enough is that the movie seems to be designed more to normalize his behavior than explain his importance on the scientific study of sex. Liam Neeson does a decent job. The secondary characters played by Chris O’Donnell, Timothy Hutton and Peter Sarsgaard aren’t developed quite enough outside the little petty rivalries they develop. John Lithgow plays Neeson’s father as a derivative of the character he played in Footloose. I don’t think Bill Condon decided whether he was making a comedy or drama, because the movie weaves back and forth. And although it’s just under two hours, it still seemed 30 minutes too long. Condon also directed GODS AND MONSTERS, another acclaimed film that left me cold.
THE NOTEBOOK (2004) Nick Cassavettes has cashed in his father’s indie credentials for a studio directing career. His mother Gena Rowlands and the reliable Jim Garner provide the sentimentality, while the youngsters including the fetching Rachel McAdams provide the sex appeal. It’s hard not to like, but guiltily so.
BRIDGET JONES: The Edge of Reason (2004) – While the Notebook was in response to the wife’s insistence that I stop throwing art house movies at her, Bridget Jones is a full capitulation of my aesthetic tastes to the art of compromise. Trish loves these books and forgives this sequel despite the 20% Rotten Tomatoes rating. The first movie is actually better than I would have thought and the second one suffers from repetition more than anything else. It goes to show that $100 million at the box office dictates sequels, not rich storylines.
Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004) – Sean Penn is believable playing the sympathetic loser that slowly blames his problems on Richard Nixon. There are some sad scenes of him trying to reconnect with his ex-wife and kids. A couple of other scenes with him working as a furniture salesmen seem realistic too. Frank Capra said that movies are real life with the boring parts cut out. Here the boring parts are left in.
NAPOLEON DYNAMITE (2004) – Like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, this movie gets street cred not for being great, but for outperforming at the box office. The filmmaker has a quirky sense of humor that reminded me of Wes Anderson. The scene where Napoleon meets Pedro and the scene with the uncle and the time machine seemed to be a B movie version of Anderson. Overall, I got kind of tired of it and it didn’t end particularly well.
Undertow (2004) – The latest film from David Gordon Green has a couple of recognizable actors including Dermot Mullroney. Roger Ebert loves this guy’s filmmaking and I have to admit that it’s not without interest. I didn’t love his debut GEORGE WASHINGTON but I respected it. I did admire his follow-up ALL THE REAL GIRLS. This runs hot and cold with me liking a good deal of it, but not really believing the ending.
THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS (2004) – Geoffrey Rush is one of my favorite actors. Peter Sellers was brilliant. Geoffrey Rush plays a stellar Sellers. The movie isn’t much more beyond that. It’s just one more example of how a humble enough guy becomes a heel through too much adoration and fawning.
+AVIATOR (2004) – One of the better movies from last year. Scorsese has been a little spotty lately with even the entertaining GANGS OF NEW YORK becoming forgettable. There is nothing about this film that would make me think he directed it, which might be a positive if you compare it to his work during the last ten years.
TWO STEVE MCQUEENS
+THE CINCINNATI KID (1965) I saw this again right as it came on DVD. Depression era New Orleans makes a great setting and the supporting players, Karl Madlen, Ann-Margaret, Rip Torn, Jack Weston and Tuesday Weld add production value. The essence of the film is the showdown between Steve McQueen and Edward G. Robinson and although the final poker hand is a stretch the drama is quite good. Commentary tracks by Norman Jewison and another by Phil Gordon and David Foley add something too. The old VHS ending had McQueen alone. The TV and DVD version has McQueen reunite with Weld.
THE WAR LOVER (1962) – Based on the novel by John Hersey, Steve McQueen is the guy you like early on until he reveals himself to be a dirtbag. Robert Wagner is his pal and co-pilot. This was one of McQueen’s early breakout roles and you can see the star power come through. Wagner’s career was already longer than McQueen’s but you can see why it never really took off. The movie itself was less interesting with every exposed frame.
REVISTING FILMS I LIKED
+LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992) – Mark Twain hated the novel by James Fenimore Cooper so much that he wrote an entire essay on it. Michael Mann and Daniel Day Lewis do a great job of making a compelling film. I liked it in the theatre years ago and I still liked it on this my second viewing. Very few films tackle this pre-Revolutionary war period well. This might be the best effort I have seen.
HONKEYTONK MAN (1981) – The critics have never much like this Eastwood film, but I have always found it charming and understated for this period in his career. Eastwood is an obscure country singer dying of TB trying to become famous before he leaves the world. Eastwood’s son Kyle makes a good co-star. James Stewart was offered the role as Grandfather, but since he refused to ever play grandfathers, he turned it down flat. The Grandfather is instead played by Stewart’s FAR COUNTRY nemesis, John McIntire. What a small world. It’s overly sentimental and a stretch and yet I fall for it every time.
+HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940) I just finished Ben Hecht’s autobiography last week and Trish wanted to see something funny so this movie played into both of our desires. The lightning fast dialogue and interplay between Cary Grant and Rosiland Russell will hold up 100 years from now, I suppose. It’s not realism, but the kind of zany world that’s much more fun than the life.
OTHER FILMS
+BRUTE FORCE (1947) – This is a good testament to the lasting influence of those commie blacklisted filmmakers and the support they still garner by the zillionaires in Hollywood. Before the openly communist, Jules Dassin was exiled to make films in Europe, he was undercover in America making films like this. There’s great drama here with Burt Lancaster leading a group of prison inmates that are either sympathetic for their innocence or the mitigating circumstances that led them to crime. It’s almost funny that the only real bad guy is sadistic prison guard Hume Cronyn. It certainly foreshadows Shawshank Redemption. Warner Brothers may have let gangsters become leading men, but they were always shot for cause in the last reel. Their ends here are treated as less than just. The over riding villain is not even Cronyn but the cold free market system itself that brought these little angels to crime. While this was a shockingly anti-American position in 1947, it’s become so standard in modern film its no wonder the Left hates HUAC and Kazan more than the Rooskies. Brute Force is one of those superior efforts with B material that is both entertaining and historically significant for its influence on modern themes.
MICHAEL MOORE HATES AMERICA (2004) – It’s not the negative film that the title suggests but a look at the positive things about America that Moore ignores for the sake of his own drama. Michael Wilson presents some interesting ideas about documentary film especially talking with Penn Gillette. He traces Moore’s steps in Flint Michigan to show it’s not such a hell hole. He also visits the bank from BOWLING FROM COLUMBINE to prove that the storyline behind the gun giveaway is totally misrepresented for the sake of drama. Wilson mostly shows how Moore plays into the dominant media bias enough that critics refuse to see beyond their own prejudices to critique the actual truth behind Moore’s claims.
+George Stevens: A filmmakers Journey (1984) – This is the second time I have seen this documentary on the forgotten filmmaker. Stevens’ son, George Jr. runs the American Film Institute at the Kennedy Center and he narrates this movie. Stevens began shooting Laurel and Hardy films in the 1920s and all but stopped making films when his big budget GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD flopped despite 5 years of production to get it just right. Stevens made some real classics, GUNGA DIN, WOMAN OF THE YEAR, A PLACE IN THE SUN, and GIANT that I have seen numerous times. This documentary makes you want to see his movies all over again.
VIVA LAS VEGAS (1964) – Elvis movies are something you like as a kid, dislike as a film student and then learn to like again on their own terms. Elvis wasn’t a good actor (or at least he didn’t try much) and his movies are usually shoddily written and yet the camera loved the guy. I tend to think his pre-Army movies are the best. Even the somewhat underrated LOVING YOU (1958) has a lot of charm. This is probably one of his better 60s movies and although you don’t believe it one moment, it’s still fun enough to watch.
TALL IN THE SADDLE (1944) – The Duke in a B-Movie Western known best by the Junto as the movie where Wayne calls the Queen dead during a poker game. “He’ll be back, he’s the type.” Kevin saw this before me and re-told the poker scene in great detail that had me laughing. When it came on DVD I decided to jump on it for old times sake. I wish Dude had been in the director's chair, because the poker game is a humorous scene, but I prefer Dude's telling of it a little more.
(+) denotes exceptional film
I am way behind in posting my reviews. Some of these date back to May. I haven't posted a book review on Amazon since January. Taking a leadership spot at work has certainly curtailed my criticism writing.
Since Netflix has allowed me to create my own mini film festivals, Ill start with a recent creation.
JAMES STEWART-ANTHONY MANN WESTERNS
WINCHESTER ’73 (1950) – This is the first entry and the only B/W. The story centers on a rare rifle that everyone wants and a character called Dutch Henry Brown that Stewart wants to kill. There are some great moments and the psychological elements that made the series famous are also present. It was unusual in contemporary westerns that a hero like Stewart would proclaim that he wants to kill someone, but it’s still a bit stuck in other conventional Western patterns nonetheless. The New York sounding Dan Duryea plays a cold blooded killer. Rock Hudson plays an Indian chief. Tony Curtis can be seen somewhere. The underrated character actor John McIntire has a small role and he would turn up as the heavy in a later installment.
BEND OF THE RIVER (1952) – It develops early as a buddy film between Stewart and Arthur Kennedy two guys that share a similar past as gun fighters. The two volunteer to help some settlers get provisions to their new homestead. Stewart shows that ill reputes can be redeemed while Arthur Kennedy shows that it’s not always so. Rock Hudson gets a bigger role as a gambler that pitches in against the villains. The relationships here are bit clumsy. I have trouble believing Kennedy would turn his back on Stewart while the Rock Hudson character seems a little too ambiguous leading up to the conclusion.
THE FAR COUNTRY (1955) – This is my favorite of the series. McIntire plays the heavy and Walter Brennan plays Stewart’s sidekick. There’s also a love triangle with Stewart on either side of the worldly Ruth Roman and the naïve Corrine Calvet. Stewart seems the most torn between morality and self-determinism here and that’s the theme of the whole series looking back. I heard a critic once say that Stewart was more in touch with his anger than any prominent American actor in the history of film. It‘s his anger in this series that’s so unusual for leading men and Stewart in general. There’s a look in his eyes that says temporary insanity.
The series also includes THE NAKED SPUR (not on DVD) and MAN FROM LARAMIE (which I couldn’t get to play in my machine). Either could be the best of the series. I've seen snipets of both on AMC through the years.
ONES I SHOULD I HAVE SEEN BEFORE NOW
DO THE RIGHT THING (1989) – Spike Lee makes better movies than his militant persona leads on. For instance, Danny Aillleo is much more sympathetic than you’d expect a white character to be. Spike even makes his own character ambivalent rather than heroic. The movie has some really good performances by the likes of Ossie Davis and John Turturro, but still the movie gets too much credit overall. Spike sets up a believable story of hot summertime Brooklyn and even the eventual riot that ensues makes dramatic sense, but the epilogue between Lee and Aiello rings so false that it spoils the realism that led up to it. Lee wants the audience to forgive the mob violence that ruined Aiello’s pizza joint with the reasoning that Aiello is insured. That it never seemed to be about money to Aiello is conveniently ignored so that the people who started the riot can be forgiven without consequences.
F FOR FAKE (1973) – The last completed movie directed by Orson Welles is many times interesting but too fragmented to make a cohesive whole. He’s great to see on camera, funny and mischievous. His voice over line readings have always been the gold standard. The movie breaks down into two parts. The first is the study of famous fakers and the second is Welles own fraud to bring the film to feature length. It’s a shame that Welles didn’t helm a commercial film in the 1960s to keep his directing career alive. Nobody could have done better with this material than Welles and yet style can’t always make up for substance.
+ ADVISE AND CONSENT (1962) – Otto Preminger directed film based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Alan Drury. Charles Laughton’s last film is a great example of his uniqueness in film history. Laughton was one of the few homely character actors to attain leading role status due to his incredible talent alone. Dude’s recent comparison to P.S. Hoffman is apt. I once thought that Gary Oldman was taking on the Laughton mantle, but he’s more chameleon like while Laughton could never disguise that mug. The center of the story is the ailing Democrat President wanting to name the controversial Henry Fonda as his new Secretary of State. Laughton is the southern Democrat opposed to the nomination. The story takes on a number of twists and the supporting characters, Walter Pidgeon, Peter Lawford and Burgess Meredith are well cast. Like George Stevens, Preminger hasn’t been given due credit for his body of work.
BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING (1965) is probably Preminger last decent film. Here an American brother and sister relocate to England to with the sister’s young daughter. Soon after the film begins, the sister’s daughter comes up missing and it’s up to English detective Lawrence Olivier to find the daughter or discover is she ever even existed. Since the audience has never seen her, we are given reason to wonder the same thing. Like 80% of all films that begin well, you have to forgive the disjointed ending a little.
RECENT FILMS
THE FORGOTTEN (2004) – This is not quite a remake of Bunny Lake, but it does share the story of the missing daughter that no one believes exists. From there is heads into otherworldly territory that might intrigue Dude and his recent studies. The trailer doesn’t give this part of the movie away. Good character actors, Alfre Woodard, Gary Sinise, and Anthony Edwards help make this a little better than the average genre picture.
HOSTAGE (2005) - I like Bruce Willis enough to watch his average action films hoping for another DIE HARD. He made his money in films like this, but movies like PULP FICTION, SIXTH SENSE and even NOBODY’S FOOL show his range much better. This is full of the petty villains that grow more psychotic, the authorities that are clueless and the big overarching super villains that always keep their poise. While entertaining enough at the time, you’ll forget it by the end of your next meal.
KINSEY (2004) – Commentators have always treated Kinsey as a pretty straight-laced guy in real life, but the filmmakers make him out to be a pervert by modern standards and a freak by the standards of his time. Interestingly enough is that the movie seems to be designed more to normalize his behavior than explain his importance on the scientific study of sex. Liam Neeson does a decent job. The secondary characters played by Chris O’Donnell, Timothy Hutton and Peter Sarsgaard aren’t developed quite enough outside the little petty rivalries they develop. John Lithgow plays Neeson’s father as a derivative of the character he played in Footloose. I don’t think Bill Condon decided whether he was making a comedy or drama, because the movie weaves back and forth. And although it’s just under two hours, it still seemed 30 minutes too long. Condon also directed GODS AND MONSTERS, another acclaimed film that left me cold.
THE NOTEBOOK (2004) Nick Cassavettes has cashed in his father’s indie credentials for a studio directing career. His mother Gena Rowlands and the reliable Jim Garner provide the sentimentality, while the youngsters including the fetching Rachel McAdams provide the sex appeal. It’s hard not to like, but guiltily so.
BRIDGET JONES: The Edge of Reason (2004) – While the Notebook was in response to the wife’s insistence that I stop throwing art house movies at her, Bridget Jones is a full capitulation of my aesthetic tastes to the art of compromise. Trish loves these books and forgives this sequel despite the 20% Rotten Tomatoes rating. The first movie is actually better than I would have thought and the second one suffers from repetition more than anything else. It goes to show that $100 million at the box office dictates sequels, not rich storylines.
Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004) – Sean Penn is believable playing the sympathetic loser that slowly blames his problems on Richard Nixon. There are some sad scenes of him trying to reconnect with his ex-wife and kids. A couple of other scenes with him working as a furniture salesmen seem realistic too. Frank Capra said that movies are real life with the boring parts cut out. Here the boring parts are left in.
NAPOLEON DYNAMITE (2004) – Like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, this movie gets street cred not for being great, but for outperforming at the box office. The filmmaker has a quirky sense of humor that reminded me of Wes Anderson. The scene where Napoleon meets Pedro and the scene with the uncle and the time machine seemed to be a B movie version of Anderson. Overall, I got kind of tired of it and it didn’t end particularly well.
Undertow (2004) – The latest film from David Gordon Green has a couple of recognizable actors including Dermot Mullroney. Roger Ebert loves this guy’s filmmaking and I have to admit that it’s not without interest. I didn’t love his debut GEORGE WASHINGTON but I respected it. I did admire his follow-up ALL THE REAL GIRLS. This runs hot and cold with me liking a good deal of it, but not really believing the ending.
THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS (2004) – Geoffrey Rush is one of my favorite actors. Peter Sellers was brilliant. Geoffrey Rush plays a stellar Sellers. The movie isn’t much more beyond that. It’s just one more example of how a humble enough guy becomes a heel through too much adoration and fawning.
+AVIATOR (2004) – One of the better movies from last year. Scorsese has been a little spotty lately with even the entertaining GANGS OF NEW YORK becoming forgettable. There is nothing about this film that would make me think he directed it, which might be a positive if you compare it to his work during the last ten years.
TWO STEVE MCQUEENS
+THE CINCINNATI KID (1965) I saw this again right as it came on DVD. Depression era New Orleans makes a great setting and the supporting players, Karl Madlen, Ann-Margaret, Rip Torn, Jack Weston and Tuesday Weld add production value. The essence of the film is the showdown between Steve McQueen and Edward G. Robinson and although the final poker hand is a stretch the drama is quite good. Commentary tracks by Norman Jewison and another by Phil Gordon and David Foley add something too. The old VHS ending had McQueen alone. The TV and DVD version has McQueen reunite with Weld.
THE WAR LOVER (1962) – Based on the novel by John Hersey, Steve McQueen is the guy you like early on until he reveals himself to be a dirtbag. Robert Wagner is his pal and co-pilot. This was one of McQueen’s early breakout roles and you can see the star power come through. Wagner’s career was already longer than McQueen’s but you can see why it never really took off. The movie itself was less interesting with every exposed frame.
REVISTING FILMS I LIKED
+LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992) – Mark Twain hated the novel by James Fenimore Cooper so much that he wrote an entire essay on it. Michael Mann and Daniel Day Lewis do a great job of making a compelling film. I liked it in the theatre years ago and I still liked it on this my second viewing. Very few films tackle this pre-Revolutionary war period well. This might be the best effort I have seen.
HONKEYTONK MAN (1981) – The critics have never much like this Eastwood film, but I have always found it charming and understated for this period in his career. Eastwood is an obscure country singer dying of TB trying to become famous before he leaves the world. Eastwood’s son Kyle makes a good co-star. James Stewart was offered the role as Grandfather, but since he refused to ever play grandfathers, he turned it down flat. The Grandfather is instead played by Stewart’s FAR COUNTRY nemesis, John McIntire. What a small world. It’s overly sentimental and a stretch and yet I fall for it every time.
+HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940) I just finished Ben Hecht’s autobiography last week and Trish wanted to see something funny so this movie played into both of our desires. The lightning fast dialogue and interplay between Cary Grant and Rosiland Russell will hold up 100 years from now, I suppose. It’s not realism, but the kind of zany world that’s much more fun than the life.
OTHER FILMS
+BRUTE FORCE (1947) – This is a good testament to the lasting influence of those commie blacklisted filmmakers and the support they still garner by the zillionaires in Hollywood. Before the openly communist, Jules Dassin was exiled to make films in Europe, he was undercover in America making films like this. There’s great drama here with Burt Lancaster leading a group of prison inmates that are either sympathetic for their innocence or the mitigating circumstances that led them to crime. It’s almost funny that the only real bad guy is sadistic prison guard Hume Cronyn. It certainly foreshadows Shawshank Redemption. Warner Brothers may have let gangsters become leading men, but they were always shot for cause in the last reel. Their ends here are treated as less than just. The over riding villain is not even Cronyn but the cold free market system itself that brought these little angels to crime. While this was a shockingly anti-American position in 1947, it’s become so standard in modern film its no wonder the Left hates HUAC and Kazan more than the Rooskies. Brute Force is one of those superior efforts with B material that is both entertaining and historically significant for its influence on modern themes.
MICHAEL MOORE HATES AMERICA (2004) – It’s not the negative film that the title suggests but a look at the positive things about America that Moore ignores for the sake of his own drama. Michael Wilson presents some interesting ideas about documentary film especially talking with Penn Gillette. He traces Moore’s steps in Flint Michigan to show it’s not such a hell hole. He also visits the bank from BOWLING FROM COLUMBINE to prove that the storyline behind the gun giveaway is totally misrepresented for the sake of drama. Wilson mostly shows how Moore plays into the dominant media bias enough that critics refuse to see beyond their own prejudices to critique the actual truth behind Moore’s claims.
+George Stevens: A filmmakers Journey (1984) – This is the second time I have seen this documentary on the forgotten filmmaker. Stevens’ son, George Jr. runs the American Film Institute at the Kennedy Center and he narrates this movie. Stevens began shooting Laurel and Hardy films in the 1920s and all but stopped making films when his big budget GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD flopped despite 5 years of production to get it just right. Stevens made some real classics, GUNGA DIN, WOMAN OF THE YEAR, A PLACE IN THE SUN, and GIANT that I have seen numerous times. This documentary makes you want to see his movies all over again.
VIVA LAS VEGAS (1964) – Elvis movies are something you like as a kid, dislike as a film student and then learn to like again on their own terms. Elvis wasn’t a good actor (or at least he didn’t try much) and his movies are usually shoddily written and yet the camera loved the guy. I tend to think his pre-Army movies are the best. Even the somewhat underrated LOVING YOU (1958) has a lot of charm. This is probably one of his better 60s movies and although you don’t believe it one moment, it’s still fun enough to watch.
TALL IN THE SADDLE (1944) – The Duke in a B-Movie Western known best by the Junto as the movie where Wayne calls the Queen dead during a poker game. “He’ll be back, he’s the type.” Kevin saw this before me and re-told the poker scene in great detail that had me laughing. When it came on DVD I decided to jump on it for old times sake. I wish Dude had been in the director's chair, because the poker game is a humorous scene, but I prefer Dude's telling of it a little more.
(+) denotes exceptional film
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Tom's APRIL Movie Reviews (coming a little late)
I'm tough on them this month.
LIFE AS A HOUSE (2001) – I wanted to like this Kevin Kline film. Mary Steenburgen, Kristen Scott Thomas, Hayden Christianson, and even Scott Bakula rounded out the decent cast. But that doggone script got in the way of a good film. The first signs of a wreck happen early when Kline gets fired and smashes the work he’s done through the years. He walks out onto the sidewalk and passes out. It’s terminal cancer. So why not spend the last remaining months building a house with my estranged son? Irwin Winkler has some pretty good Producing screen credits and he should stick to that line of work, because as a director he ain’t all that.
ANCHORMAN (2004) – I liked OLD SCHOOL despite being ready not to. I fully expected to like this and was disappointed. Will Ferrell is only funny in an uncomfortable way which doesn’t work for me. Guys like Vince Vaughn and Luke Wilson carried OLD SCHOOL and their brief cameos here can’t pick up the slack.
+LAST DAYS OF CHASENS (1997) – Interesting documentary about the famous eatery where Ron proposed to Nancy. We get to know the staff, many of which have been there for 30+ years. Stars make a brief appearance and the history of the place is revealed. A good example of how an unscripted film can be brought together in tiny pieces successfully in unpredictable ways.
MAGIC CHRISTIAN (1970) Peter Sellers is funny. Ringo too a little bit. There are some funny moments like Sellers in the train car buying a hotdog from the vendor on the platform at 30MPH. The downside is that I saw it only a week ago and I remember little else.
13 GOING ON 30 (2004) – I didn’t pick this one, but it’s not bad for the genre. A female update of the Tom Hanks BIG concept. You don’t need to see it, but it will pass the time.
CLOSER (2004) – Told in an interesting way, but not interesting in and of itself. I liked it a good for a while. Mike Nichols seemed to have cast it well. I just didn’t buy the last ¼ of it. The question of jealousy and unfaithfulness seemed to be better handled in THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS.
+GARDEN STATE (2004) – This is one of the best movies of 2004. I found it to be a modern day combination of THE GRADUATE and HAROLD AND MAUDE with its wayward protagonist and ballad soundtrack. It was funny enough to be a comedy and sweet enough to be a date film. And yet it was nothing like those WHEN HARRY MET SALLY ripoffs we've seen in the last 15 years.
I HEART HUCKABEES (2004) – I can respect an idea taken to the limit and this has a particularly witty screenplay, but I was easily distracted away from it. I think it was a combination of too many characters or maybe just too much Jude Law lately. He's in everything.
NAPOLEON DYNAMITE (2004) – The character is funny enough and his uncle is even a little funnier, but the movie doesn’t have much to say or do. The Pedro character was funny in a Wes Anderson sort of way. It was very Anderson like in general, but I was struggling to stay awake for the big dance at the end.
I'm tough on them this month.
LIFE AS A HOUSE (2001) – I wanted to like this Kevin Kline film. Mary Steenburgen, Kristen Scott Thomas, Hayden Christianson, and even Scott Bakula rounded out the decent cast. But that doggone script got in the way of a good film. The first signs of a wreck happen early when Kline gets fired and smashes the work he’s done through the years. He walks out onto the sidewalk and passes out. It’s terminal cancer. So why not spend the last remaining months building a house with my estranged son? Irwin Winkler has some pretty good Producing screen credits and he should stick to that line of work, because as a director he ain’t all that.
ANCHORMAN (2004) – I liked OLD SCHOOL despite being ready not to. I fully expected to like this and was disappointed. Will Ferrell is only funny in an uncomfortable way which doesn’t work for me. Guys like Vince Vaughn and Luke Wilson carried OLD SCHOOL and their brief cameos here can’t pick up the slack.
+LAST DAYS OF CHASENS (1997) – Interesting documentary about the famous eatery where Ron proposed to Nancy. We get to know the staff, many of which have been there for 30+ years. Stars make a brief appearance and the history of the place is revealed. A good example of how an unscripted film can be brought together in tiny pieces successfully in unpredictable ways.
MAGIC CHRISTIAN (1970) Peter Sellers is funny. Ringo too a little bit. There are some funny moments like Sellers in the train car buying a hotdog from the vendor on the platform at 30MPH. The downside is that I saw it only a week ago and I remember little else.
13 GOING ON 30 (2004) – I didn’t pick this one, but it’s not bad for the genre. A female update of the Tom Hanks BIG concept. You don’t need to see it, but it will pass the time.
CLOSER (2004) – Told in an interesting way, but not interesting in and of itself. I liked it a good for a while. Mike Nichols seemed to have cast it well. I just didn’t buy the last ¼ of it. The question of jealousy and unfaithfulness seemed to be better handled in THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS.
+GARDEN STATE (2004) – This is one of the best movies of 2004. I found it to be a modern day combination of THE GRADUATE and HAROLD AND MAUDE with its wayward protagonist and ballad soundtrack. It was funny enough to be a comedy and sweet enough to be a date film. And yet it was nothing like those WHEN HARRY MET SALLY ripoffs we've seen in the last 15 years.
I HEART HUCKABEES (2004) – I can respect an idea taken to the limit and this has a particularly witty screenplay, but I was easily distracted away from it. I think it was a combination of too many characters or maybe just too much Jude Law lately. He's in everything.
NAPOLEON DYNAMITE (2004) – The character is funny enough and his uncle is even a little funnier, but the movie doesn’t have much to say or do. The Pedro character was funny in a Wes Anderson sort of way. It was very Anderson like in general, but I was struggling to stay awake for the big dance at the end.
Friday, June 17, 2005
MOVIES FROM TOM
I've been writing reviews and not posting. Here is what I saw in March.
+TOUCHING THE VOID (2003) – The story of two mountain climbers that run into trouble and how they deal with it. The story is quite compelling and the cinematography is also brilliant. It’s somewhat controversial in that it’s part documentary and part drama. Does that make it a docudrama?
+CHARLEY VARRICK (1973) – Another early Walter Mathau film that’s quite entertaining. It doesn’t hurt that it’s directed by the under-rated Don Siegel right at the height of his creative powers. Mathau plays Varrick, a cunning bank robber that attempts to steal a few thousand dollars from a soft rural bank, but accidently steals a couple of hundred thousand dollars in mob money in the process of being laundered. Mathau knows immediately what it means and is worried to death. His partner Andy Robinson (The villain from Dirty Harry) won’t listen to Mathau and really over plays the part. Still it’s an overall entertaining movie and a chance to see the underrated Mathau play another solid role.
GO TIGERS (2001) – A decent documentary about the Massillon High School football program. The filmmakers portray Massillon as the most storied high school team in the country. They even show parts of a 1950s era documentary called “TOCHDOWN TOWN” about Massillon’s love for the game. Even by 1950, Massillon had already won 10 State Championships in the sport. The school is in the heart of Canton Ohio, home of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The famous Paul Brown went to Massillon as did the recent pro bowl player Chris Spielman. Even soap opera actor David Cannary played football as Massillon. The story in the documentary is how Massillon 4-6 the previous year will rebound. Also weighing on everyone’s minds is whether the city can pass a levy for more school revenue. It’s obvious the school is spending all their money on football and without the levy they’ll fire teachers rather than skimp on pigskin. We also get to know a few of the Massillon players and the DVD gives us an update on their lives this many years later.
+SIDEWAYS (2004) – Alexander Payne of ELECTION and ABOUT SCHMIDT fame hits the mark again. Two buddies living out a weeklong bachelor party gets the tone of real life in a way most movies do not. I’ve heard complaints that the movie talks about wine too much and that might be true for people who don’t like wine, but I think the screenwriter does a good job of using wine to underscore their lives. Giammati was the victim of Eastwood’s legend and didn’t get a nomination. That will probably be remedied in his next performance.
BADLANDS (1973) – Terrance Mallick’s debut film contains much of the style we saw again in the 1998 film, THIN RED LINE. Martin Sheen plays this James Dean look-a-like killer who has a lot of charisma. Cissy Spacek plays the jailbait sidekick. I can see how this move was controversial and how Mallick proved he was a major talent (some might say wasted talent), but since we’ve seen this kind of material played out any number of ways since, the style is the main interest here. I’d recommend it for history and some really well done visuals, but it left me kind of hollow. Maybe that was the point.
THE TERMINAL (2004) – Tom Hanks is well cast as the foreigner in limbo between countries. Catherine Zeta Jones is fetching although seeming a bit overused lately. The story guides along for a good hour, but since conflict is the essence of drama, Spielberg and the screenwriter make a cartoon villain out of the usually reliable Stanley Tucci, after introducing him as a much more complex and interesting character. Tucci’s motivations seem petty and suspect and it’s that central conflict that is supposed to explain the second half of the movie. Skip it unless you like to hear Tom Hanks do accents.
STRAW DOGS (1971) – is much like Badlands in that it’s a violent film in the early 1970s that found controversy. Dustin Hoffman is plays an American living in rural Great Britain with his English wife. Hoffman is a mathematician trying to be productive on sabbatical while his sexy wife is getting bored with his inattention. Although the violence is hinted at early on, the film is into the second half before you see any real ugliness. Anyone schooled on modern films won’t find this terribly worse than what their use to. Still, it has the Peckinpah style that makes you root for more bloodshed. If you like comely English blondes you’ll enjoy Susan George. I won’t see it again, but I’m happy I saw it once.
DeLovely (2004) – I often forget what a good actor Kevin Kline is and after seeing EMPEROR’S CLUB I decided to see his take on Cole Porter. I’ve always enjoyed porter witty tunes like ANYTHING GOES and deeper ones like I’VE GOT YOU UNDER MY SKIN. Kline is decent enough as Porter, but the movie is annoying for being gimmicky and slow-moving.
I've been writing reviews and not posting. Here is what I saw in March.
+TOUCHING THE VOID (2003) – The story of two mountain climbers that run into trouble and how they deal with it. The story is quite compelling and the cinematography is also brilliant. It’s somewhat controversial in that it’s part documentary and part drama. Does that make it a docudrama?
+CHARLEY VARRICK (1973) – Another early Walter Mathau film that’s quite entertaining. It doesn’t hurt that it’s directed by the under-rated Don Siegel right at the height of his creative powers. Mathau plays Varrick, a cunning bank robber that attempts to steal a few thousand dollars from a soft rural bank, but accidently steals a couple of hundred thousand dollars in mob money in the process of being laundered. Mathau knows immediately what it means and is worried to death. His partner Andy Robinson (The villain from Dirty Harry) won’t listen to Mathau and really over plays the part. Still it’s an overall entertaining movie and a chance to see the underrated Mathau play another solid role.
GO TIGERS (2001) – A decent documentary about the Massillon High School football program. The filmmakers portray Massillon as the most storied high school team in the country. They even show parts of a 1950s era documentary called “TOCHDOWN TOWN” about Massillon’s love for the game. Even by 1950, Massillon had already won 10 State Championships in the sport. The school is in the heart of Canton Ohio, home of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The famous Paul Brown went to Massillon as did the recent pro bowl player Chris Spielman. Even soap opera actor David Cannary played football as Massillon. The story in the documentary is how Massillon 4-6 the previous year will rebound. Also weighing on everyone’s minds is whether the city can pass a levy for more school revenue. It’s obvious the school is spending all their money on football and without the levy they’ll fire teachers rather than skimp on pigskin. We also get to know a few of the Massillon players and the DVD gives us an update on their lives this many years later.
+SIDEWAYS (2004) – Alexander Payne of ELECTION and ABOUT SCHMIDT fame hits the mark again. Two buddies living out a weeklong bachelor party gets the tone of real life in a way most movies do not. I’ve heard complaints that the movie talks about wine too much and that might be true for people who don’t like wine, but I think the screenwriter does a good job of using wine to underscore their lives. Giammati was the victim of Eastwood’s legend and didn’t get a nomination. That will probably be remedied in his next performance.
BADLANDS (1973) – Terrance Mallick’s debut film contains much of the style we saw again in the 1998 film, THIN RED LINE. Martin Sheen plays this James Dean look-a-like killer who has a lot of charisma. Cissy Spacek plays the jailbait sidekick. I can see how this move was controversial and how Mallick proved he was a major talent (some might say wasted talent), but since we’ve seen this kind of material played out any number of ways since, the style is the main interest here. I’d recommend it for history and some really well done visuals, but it left me kind of hollow. Maybe that was the point.
THE TERMINAL (2004) – Tom Hanks is well cast as the foreigner in limbo between countries. Catherine Zeta Jones is fetching although seeming a bit overused lately. The story guides along for a good hour, but since conflict is the essence of drama, Spielberg and the screenwriter make a cartoon villain out of the usually reliable Stanley Tucci, after introducing him as a much more complex and interesting character. Tucci’s motivations seem petty and suspect and it’s that central conflict that is supposed to explain the second half of the movie. Skip it unless you like to hear Tom Hanks do accents.
STRAW DOGS (1971) – is much like Badlands in that it’s a violent film in the early 1970s that found controversy. Dustin Hoffman is plays an American living in rural Great Britain with his English wife. Hoffman is a mathematician trying to be productive on sabbatical while his sexy wife is getting bored with his inattention. Although the violence is hinted at early on, the film is into the second half before you see any real ugliness. Anyone schooled on modern films won’t find this terribly worse than what their use to. Still, it has the Peckinpah style that makes you root for more bloodshed. If you like comely English blondes you’ll enjoy Susan George. I won’t see it again, but I’m happy I saw it once.
DeLovely (2004) – I often forget what a good actor Kevin Kline is and after seeing EMPEROR’S CLUB I decided to see his take on Cole Porter. I’ve always enjoyed porter witty tunes like ANYTHING GOES and deeper ones like I’VE GOT YOU UNDER MY SKIN. Kline is decent enough as Porter, but the movie is annoying for being gimmicky and slow-moving.
Friday, June 10, 2005
IN MEMPHIS WITH SIR SAUNDERS
I tagged along with Steve for two days as he met with lawyers and ultimately testified before federal court as an expert witness in the sentencing phase of a University of Alabama football booster.
The actual trial was over in February and it involved a Memphis areas businessman, Logan Young, who was approached to help convince a low income family to send their star athlete to 'Bama to play pigskin. A good way to convince them is to present large coarse bank notes, and Logan will now go to jail for the pleasure.
The worst kept secret in sports is the fact that college athletes are paid under the table to play. It's no longer a matter of whether they'll get money to play, but who gets to be the token example every now and then when someone has to be caught. As long as the NCAA makes periodic suspensions and Johnny Law makes the occasional arrest, we who watch college sports are to think that everything is clean again.
The defendant, Logan Young, is the latest token. The charges against the poor guy include racketeering which I think is a good example of how dangerous vague laws can be. Legislation intended to end such things as organized crime can easily be manipulated to go after, in this case, an overzealous fan. The Feds case boils down to this: a poor student athlete was a victim of adults that exchanged money in order for him sign with a certain football program. He was called a slave by the prosecution. No slave in this history of this union was victimized with this kind of payoff. The best they can figure, this kid and his family got a minimum of $60,000.
Logan is also charged with bribing a public official. It’s a stretch, but since the coach of Alabama works for the state of Alabama and since that University accepts money from the federal government, Logan is just as corrupt at Don Corleone.
Anyway, that's over. He's guilty. We're ready to bring the guillotine. Wait. Logan Young has Kidney problems and needs a transplant. Steve is called as a defense witness to describe the bureaucratic nightmare in getting an inmate a transplanted organ.
It began with smooth waters as the defense witness asked Steve to explain the procedures. Having roomed with Steve for two years he would frequently share funny stories about how the federal government operates. Just listening to the chain of command is enough to convince you that inmates would better use their time constructing their own coffins.
The prosecution began piping in with objections. Steve is just a psychologist, what does he know about medical procedures? Ah, but Steve knows the bureaucracy as well as anyone and a number of his psych inmates also needed medical help. He was involved with both. The prosecutor hammered home the fact that Steve wasn't a medical doctor and that he had never known anyone trying to get a kidney transplant from a federal prison. The prosecutor then shared with the court that only one person had ever gotten a kidney transplant in federal prison. The point was to prove that Steve didn't know anyone who had, but it really proved Steve's point that it would be impossible to get.
The prosecution's next witness, a nurse who works as a regional medical director with the federal prisons would tell us that so many people are on the list for these transplants that someday soon we'll have a whole hell of a lot of examples of kidney transplants. I think they were trying to show that a system is in place to help all of these people, but Steve's advance testimony that the bureaucratic machine would ruin those plans hurt the prosecutions argument. Add that to the prosecutor stating that only one such transplant has ever happened, and wala, you put enough doubt into the judge’s mind that such procedures really happen. You have a lot of people waiting on one side and only one completion on the other.
The prosecutor spent most of his time with the nurse establishing him as the real expert. The nurse is a regional health director with 17 years of bureau experience and his testimony was making Steve look like a guy outside of his field of knowledge. Steve was sitting next to me at this time and he would whisper when the guy had it wrong. I felt bad for Steve like he couldn't do anything to defend himself.
It was 3:30pm by now and we were expecting to catch the 5:30 back to Orlando when at recess the defense attorney asked Steve to stick around for a possible rebuttal.
After the recess, the defense attorney got up there and tied the nurse into knots. Steve had brought along with him a bunch of policies straight from the bureau's website. Those policies not only contradicted the prosecutions star witness, but made him look less than an expert. It only took a couple of questions until you realized that the nurse didn't even know the written policies. With not too much work, the defense lawyer had built Steve back into an expert and turned the nurse into a guy licking his wounds in the back row. Steve felt bad for this nurse because bureau people don't even get paid to testify in court whereas Steve was doing it as a freelance job. The nurse was less than hospitable when Steve approached him later. The lesson is that it's easier to be charitable when you turn out to be the credible witness.
Steve never got back on the stand, but we stayed and heard a number of character witness tell us that Logan was a generous guy and nonviolent. He has a lot of ties to the community and isn't a danger to flee.
At some point Steve turned and said, "There goes the plane."
I said, "Who cares. This is more fun."
When it looked like the judge would finally decide the sentence, the oldest of the defense lawyers, an ex-prosecutor that indicted G Gordon Liddy, got out a copy of the Memphis paper and used the words of another defendant to postpone the sentencing. He made the argument that quotes attributed to the ex-high school coach, Lynn Lang, contradict the case made by the prosecution against Logan Young. So now the whole circus begins again on Monday with Lang summonsed to court.
At 6:30pm or so Sir Saunders and I were bunny hopping it over to the Memphis airport in the rain with a car to return off site and no idea whether or not a later flight even existed. Steve was unsure of his performance. The defese lawyer said. "Well you told the truth you couldn't do any more than that."
I was right there and understood the lawyer to mean that the prosecutor had done the best he could to discredit Steve by pointing out Steve's status as a psychologist and not a physician. Steve couldn't pretend to be a doctor. He had to be honest.
It was Steve’s first time as an expert witness and he really needed more feedback from the attorney, but it was obvious that the attorney was already three pages later trying to make his next point about a different subject.
I was particularly impressed with two things that Steve did on the stand. The first was Steve had never had an inmate who needed a kidney transplant, but Steve did have a number of inmates that needed medical procedures that were identical in process to asking for a kidney transplant. The defense lawyer never directly asked this question and from the audience I kept waiting for it to be asked. Finally Steve, who was thinking the same thing, got the information in through the backdoor. Second, I thought the prosecution was harsher with Steve than any other witness we saw. He really talked down to him and tried to belittle his experience. It was obvious that the prosecution was afriad of him. Steve really kept his composure. I’m sure he felt rattled, but he kept the kind of confidence he needed to be credible.
Steve’s most important contribution wasn’t his testimony but a greater understanding of bureau policy and procedure. Steve handed the defense a packet of policy papers the day before and that packet allowed the defense to contradict the nurse as any kind of expert on policy. The audience wouldn’t have known, but the psychologist with half as much time in the bureau knew more about the workings of medical procedure than someone who works as a regional medical director.
We were lucky enough to get another flight and still make our connection in Atlanta. I hope this poor Logan Young gets his kidney and the government gets off his back. If poor kids want money to play football in college I’m not sure why the government thinks they need to step in and keep it from happening. When liberals complain that the war in Iraq is keeping the government from doing their real job here at home, is this what they want, more prosecutions related to college athletics?
The government as a mechanism grows without thought to productivity. One result of such growth is the need to do something proactive about the real or perceived injustices of life. Soon the quest for correcting grand wrongs reaches the margins of inequity until some day people are prosecuted simply for wanting a better defensive lineman at their alma matter. The lesson is that anything can be made illegal if enough people are offended by it, but do we really prosper as a nation that spends its time getting into everyone else's business?
A judge, his staff, a team of federal prosecutors, court reporters, bailiffs, defense attorneys and private citizens will gather again on Monday, spending a bunch of tax payer money to decide whether or not an ardent football fan will be allowed to get his new kidney. Is the taxpayer served by this circus? Isn’t the real problem with budget deficits and high tax rates related right back to how the government is willing to waste taxpayer money on non-violent state-created criminals?
Logan Young didn’t bribe a public official in order to get the government to do his bidding. That’s the point of such a law. You don’t want private citizens buying the strength of the government so that they can break the law with impunity. Logan just wanted a winning season. If he were to die in prison for such a desire, will our country be well served?
I tagged along with Steve for two days as he met with lawyers and ultimately testified before federal court as an expert witness in the sentencing phase of a University of Alabama football booster.
The actual trial was over in February and it involved a Memphis areas businessman, Logan Young, who was approached to help convince a low income family to send their star athlete to 'Bama to play pigskin. A good way to convince them is to present large coarse bank notes, and Logan will now go to jail for the pleasure.
The worst kept secret in sports is the fact that college athletes are paid under the table to play. It's no longer a matter of whether they'll get money to play, but who gets to be the token example every now and then when someone has to be caught. As long as the NCAA makes periodic suspensions and Johnny Law makes the occasional arrest, we who watch college sports are to think that everything is clean again.
The defendant, Logan Young, is the latest token. The charges against the poor guy include racketeering which I think is a good example of how dangerous vague laws can be. Legislation intended to end such things as organized crime can easily be manipulated to go after, in this case, an overzealous fan. The Feds case boils down to this: a poor student athlete was a victim of adults that exchanged money in order for him sign with a certain football program. He was called a slave by the prosecution. No slave in this history of this union was victimized with this kind of payoff. The best they can figure, this kid and his family got a minimum of $60,000.
Logan is also charged with bribing a public official. It’s a stretch, but since the coach of Alabama works for the state of Alabama and since that University accepts money from the federal government, Logan is just as corrupt at Don Corleone.
Anyway, that's over. He's guilty. We're ready to bring the guillotine. Wait. Logan Young has Kidney problems and needs a transplant. Steve is called as a defense witness to describe the bureaucratic nightmare in getting an inmate a transplanted organ.
It began with smooth waters as the defense witness asked Steve to explain the procedures. Having roomed with Steve for two years he would frequently share funny stories about how the federal government operates. Just listening to the chain of command is enough to convince you that inmates would better use their time constructing their own coffins.
The prosecution began piping in with objections. Steve is just a psychologist, what does he know about medical procedures? Ah, but Steve knows the bureaucracy as well as anyone and a number of his psych inmates also needed medical help. He was involved with both. The prosecutor hammered home the fact that Steve wasn't a medical doctor and that he had never known anyone trying to get a kidney transplant from a federal prison. The prosecutor then shared with the court that only one person had ever gotten a kidney transplant in federal prison. The point was to prove that Steve didn't know anyone who had, but it really proved Steve's point that it would be impossible to get.
The prosecution's next witness, a nurse who works as a regional medical director with the federal prisons would tell us that so many people are on the list for these transplants that someday soon we'll have a whole hell of a lot of examples of kidney transplants. I think they were trying to show that a system is in place to help all of these people, but Steve's advance testimony that the bureaucratic machine would ruin those plans hurt the prosecutions argument. Add that to the prosecutor stating that only one such transplant has ever happened, and wala, you put enough doubt into the judge’s mind that such procedures really happen. You have a lot of people waiting on one side and only one completion on the other.
The prosecutor spent most of his time with the nurse establishing him as the real expert. The nurse is a regional health director with 17 years of bureau experience and his testimony was making Steve look like a guy outside of his field of knowledge. Steve was sitting next to me at this time and he would whisper when the guy had it wrong. I felt bad for Steve like he couldn't do anything to defend himself.
It was 3:30pm by now and we were expecting to catch the 5:30 back to Orlando when at recess the defense attorney asked Steve to stick around for a possible rebuttal.
After the recess, the defense attorney got up there and tied the nurse into knots. Steve had brought along with him a bunch of policies straight from the bureau's website. Those policies not only contradicted the prosecutions star witness, but made him look less than an expert. It only took a couple of questions until you realized that the nurse didn't even know the written policies. With not too much work, the defense lawyer had built Steve back into an expert and turned the nurse into a guy licking his wounds in the back row. Steve felt bad for this nurse because bureau people don't even get paid to testify in court whereas Steve was doing it as a freelance job. The nurse was less than hospitable when Steve approached him later. The lesson is that it's easier to be charitable when you turn out to be the credible witness.
Steve never got back on the stand, but we stayed and heard a number of character witness tell us that Logan was a generous guy and nonviolent. He has a lot of ties to the community and isn't a danger to flee.
At some point Steve turned and said, "There goes the plane."
I said, "Who cares. This is more fun."
When it looked like the judge would finally decide the sentence, the oldest of the defense lawyers, an ex-prosecutor that indicted G Gordon Liddy, got out a copy of the Memphis paper and used the words of another defendant to postpone the sentencing. He made the argument that quotes attributed to the ex-high school coach, Lynn Lang, contradict the case made by the prosecution against Logan Young. So now the whole circus begins again on Monday with Lang summonsed to court.
At 6:30pm or so Sir Saunders and I were bunny hopping it over to the Memphis airport in the rain with a car to return off site and no idea whether or not a later flight even existed. Steve was unsure of his performance. The defese lawyer said. "Well you told the truth you couldn't do any more than that."
I was right there and understood the lawyer to mean that the prosecutor had done the best he could to discredit Steve by pointing out Steve's status as a psychologist and not a physician. Steve couldn't pretend to be a doctor. He had to be honest.
It was Steve’s first time as an expert witness and he really needed more feedback from the attorney, but it was obvious that the attorney was already three pages later trying to make his next point about a different subject.
I was particularly impressed with two things that Steve did on the stand. The first was Steve had never had an inmate who needed a kidney transplant, but Steve did have a number of inmates that needed medical procedures that were identical in process to asking for a kidney transplant. The defense lawyer never directly asked this question and from the audience I kept waiting for it to be asked. Finally Steve, who was thinking the same thing, got the information in through the backdoor. Second, I thought the prosecution was harsher with Steve than any other witness we saw. He really talked down to him and tried to belittle his experience. It was obvious that the prosecution was afriad of him. Steve really kept his composure. I’m sure he felt rattled, but he kept the kind of confidence he needed to be credible.
Steve’s most important contribution wasn’t his testimony but a greater understanding of bureau policy and procedure. Steve handed the defense a packet of policy papers the day before and that packet allowed the defense to contradict the nurse as any kind of expert on policy. The audience wouldn’t have known, but the psychologist with half as much time in the bureau knew more about the workings of medical procedure than someone who works as a regional medical director.
We were lucky enough to get another flight and still make our connection in Atlanta. I hope this poor Logan Young gets his kidney and the government gets off his back. If poor kids want money to play football in college I’m not sure why the government thinks they need to step in and keep it from happening. When liberals complain that the war in Iraq is keeping the government from doing their real job here at home, is this what they want, more prosecutions related to college athletics?
The government as a mechanism grows without thought to productivity. One result of such growth is the need to do something proactive about the real or perceived injustices of life. Soon the quest for correcting grand wrongs reaches the margins of inequity until some day people are prosecuted simply for wanting a better defensive lineman at their alma matter. The lesson is that anything can be made illegal if enough people are offended by it, but do we really prosper as a nation that spends its time getting into everyone else's business?
A judge, his staff, a team of federal prosecutors, court reporters, bailiffs, defense attorneys and private citizens will gather again on Monday, spending a bunch of tax payer money to decide whether or not an ardent football fan will be allowed to get his new kidney. Is the taxpayer served by this circus? Isn’t the real problem with budget deficits and high tax rates related right back to how the government is willing to waste taxpayer money on non-violent state-created criminals?
Logan Young didn’t bribe a public official in order to get the government to do his bidding. That’s the point of such a law. You don’t want private citizens buying the strength of the government so that they can break the law with impunity. Logan just wanted a winning season. If he were to die in prison for such a desire, will our country be well served?
Sunday, February 27, 2005
FEBRUARY MOVIE ROUNDUP
DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTER BOYS (2002) – In the tradition of STAND BY ME in that it’s a movie about kids made for grownups. It has an inventive first act, and it sustains itself through Act II, but the ending doesn’t dramatically fit the lead up. It’s set in the 1950s and our main character and his friends have drawn their own alter ego comic book super heroes. Periodically through the film the characters come to life in an animated sequence that parallels the live action angst of our hero. I found this to be generally interesting, but it annoyed me that it wasn’t done in 1970s style animation. Would this kid really have imagined the technological advances of the medium?
DEVIL’S PLAYGROUND (2002) - It turns out that Amish kids can run wild when they turn 16 and most do. They’re expected to eventually give it up and join the church and be God fearing in the old tradition and most do that too. This was an interesting documentary about what these kids actually do when the freedom comes. Some of the subjects join up and others go running off. I grew up about 20 minutes from where this was shot so it was particularly interesting for that reason alone.
THE ALAMO (2004) – This was the equivalent of a well made TV movie. The script is adequate. The actors don’t run into the furniture. I was maybe supposed to be thrilled by the battle scenes, but they weren’t particular inventive. We did get to fly with a cannonball once like we fell with that bomb in PEARL HARBOR (2001). Video games use to copy movies and now movies are copying video games. Another similarity to PEARL HARBOR was that this massacre didn’t complete the film. We got to see Sam Houston route Santa Anna like we got to see General Doolittle bomb Japan. We’re not far away from a time in which Romeo and Juliet ends with Mr. Capulet strangling Friar Lawrence and the Nurse.
+ANIMAL HOUSE (1978) – Still good after all these years. Tim Matheson does a decent job leading the film and Belushi is still funny. Bruce McGill plays D-Day, which means nothing except that he’s turned into a very productive character actor. You see him all the time in small roles. He played Ralph Houk in 61 and he played Peter Arnett in LIVE FROM BAGHDAD. He’s also in Collateral, Matchstick Men, Ali, The Sum of All Fears, Bagger Vance, The Insider. . . Why didn’t Tim Matheson have a better career?
+DRESSED TO KILL (1980) De Palma’s Psycho homage. The heroine dies early in the film via the ugly knife. The shower is used in dream sequences. An adultery angle pops up. The killer is fighting multiple personalities, one male and one female. DePalma’s career choices? SNAKE EYES? MISSION TO MARS? Gimme a freakin break.
SECOND HAND LIONS (2003) – Duvall and Caine wasted on an uneven film that changes tone frequently. The title is some sort of obvious symbolism, while the plot reminds one of BIG FISH (2004) without the stylish magic. There are some funny moments early on, but the screenwriter ran out of gas and the director couldn’t keep things together.
A PERFECT CANDIDATE (1996) The movie doesn't seem to take sides in the 1994 Senate race between Oliver North and Chuck Robb. It's mostly about North though and he comes off as earnest, although his campaign manager is a self-promoting jerk. North is gracious in his defeat, but the campaign manager is so self-involved he doesn't even care how his candidate feels. And who knew Chuck Robb was so void of personality. No wonder George Allen defeated him in 2000. The most interesting character in the movie is the Washington Post reporter who follows and asks questions of the candidates. He's totally over Chuck Robb, because Robb claims to have never told a lie. Who hasn't told a lie? A seminal moment is that same reporter asking Robb to clarify his position on strikebreakers. Robb talks in circles and will not answer the question no matter how many ways it is posed.
+TARGETS (1968) – Peter Bogdanovich’s debut was a low budget suspense film produced by Roger Corman. Corman told Bogdanovich that Boris Karloff owed him two days and that he could use 20 minutes from the Karloff picture, THE TERROR. Instead of writing a horror film around the footage, Bogdanovich dreamed up a scenario in which an aging film actor wants to retire while a young man goes on a shooting spree. It’s just a matter of time before the two meet up. It’s full of the gee whiz acting style contrasted by some grizzly shootings.
+SHORT CUTS (1993) I hadn’t seen this since the theatrical release, and at the time I had only seen two Altman films, THE PLAYER the year before and MASH when I was real young. In the last year or so I have seen NASHVILLE, LONG GOODBYE, and THREE WOMEN. I am amazed at how they all have the same soft dreamy camera work and nonchalant pacing style. Of the previous three, I only liked LONG GOODBYE, and I would have liked it better had they stuck to the original Raymond Chandler novel. For all the praise NASHVILLE gets I found it one long snooze. THREE WOMEN was Atlman’s attempt at a weird Euorpean style. SHORT CUTS works better than any of them.
+ASHES AND DIAMONDS (1958) – I just recently came across the name of Andzej Wajda, a man considered Poland’s greatest director. There was a time that I would read about someone like this and just forget all about it. Now we have Netflix. Zbigniew Cybulski is a young man who is part of an underground movement to rid Poland of Communists shortly after the war. The movie begins with he and his boss offing a couple of dudes thought to be the new communist leaders coming to town. They got the wrong guys. The rest of the movie takes place inside their hotel where the real communist leader is also staying. Cybulski is ready to try it all over again, but in the interim he meets and romances the fetching young bartender, Eva Krzyewska. Our character is therefore torn between having a normal life with Eva and carrying out his duty to the resistance. If Eva is the standard looking Eastern European babe, it’s no wonder it took them so long to tear the iron curtain down. Who could keep their mind on the revolution?
HAPPY ACCIDENTS (1999) From Director Brad Anderson, the guy who just directed the MACHINIST with Christian Bale’s weight loss. Kooky actor Vincent D'Onofrio plays a kooky character that may be from the year 2470. Marisa Tomei plays his wacky girlfriend that alternates between playing along with him for the excitement and getting angry at his active imagination. These actors are both better as supporting players. They don’t have enough of that heroic magnetism to make you root for them. The payoff is somewhat interesting if you make it that far. I was ready for it to end.
THE CROSSING GUARD (1995) – This is a perplexing movie at first sight. It’s written and directed by Sean Penn, a man who couldn’t put a single coherent thought together in one hour on the Larry King show in 2002. Penn’s case that night of the wonderful people in Iraq and why we shouldn’t go to war was nothing but emoting through a string of disjointed words and phrases that lacked argument, evidence and conclusion. It might go down as the perfect example of how artists are ill equipped to function in the real world. The CROSSING GUARD is full of the same kinds of unfocused emoting, but it works here somewhat better. Jack Nicholson and Anjelica Huston split up after their daughter was killed by a drunk driver. The driver (David Morse) is getting out of prison at the beginning of the film and Jack plans to put a hole in him. The plot gets no deeper. Morse feels as bad as Jack and they spend the movie in parallel despair. It’s certainly the kind of movie made by someone who likes to see acting rather than story. If you add this movie to his other directorial effort, THE PLEDGE and the Eastwood film, MYSTIC RIVER, the Robbins film DEAD MAN WALKING one would get the idea that Penn is building an entire portion of his career around the murdered daughter plot device.
HURLY BURLY (1998) – One of those showcase for actors movies that gets a top notch cast because the characters get to do so many random and exciting things. For the audience waiting to see how this slice of life nonsense fits together, it’s less thrilling. There’s a few moments and even some decently written dialogue, but it falls short of something I would call either art or entertainment. My old theatre teacher, Susan Harper labeled this category as actor masturbation.
+EMPEROR’S CLUB (2002) – Kline is a classics teacher in one of those typical Eastern prep schools circa 1975. Emile Hirsch (one of the kids from DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTER BOYS) plays the rebellious kid that Kline must set straight. It has something interesting to say about how teachers sometimes waste effort on bad kids that cannot be reached at the expense of kids that could better use and appreciate that same help. It also has much to say about the inherit value of personal virtue. The movie doesn’t denigrate capitalism or the real world, but appreciates the successful graduates who learned their lesson in that school. You’d expect the rebellious kid to be redeemed through efforts of the great teacher, but instead he’s proven dishonest twice, once as a student and later as a candidate for the Senate. As the Senate candidate he repeats the hackneyed lines about the importance of education that as we know he doesn’t believe. His donation to his Alma Matter is nothing but cheap political opportunism. This film is about the inherent value of education not a propagation of the institutions or processes that masquerade as education while functioning as jobs programs and daycare. Since I spent the better part of the movie trying to guess the liberal twist, I was surprised to find a conservative movie that didn’t apologize for it.
+61* (2001) – I had no patience for reading when I was a kid. But meeting Mickey Mantle when I was 7 changed my life. I started reading books about Mantle and the Yankees. Reading those books led to other baseball books and I eventually wrote Roger Maris a letter asking for his autograph and he kindly sent me his signature only a few years before his early death from smoking. Mickey would eventually succumb to the drink and both habits can be witnessed in the painfully accurate Billy Crystal movie. I saw it again last night for the 5th or 6th time. Will McGwire, Sosa and Bonds someday die from the effects of Steroids? Crystal uses CGI to great effect and he has a real love for the material. Mel Allen and Scooter Rizzuto are fun. Yogi has a couple of Yogi lines. Whitey Ford pipes in from time to time. It's hard to get over how much Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane look like Maris and Mantle.
DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTER BOYS (2002) – In the tradition of STAND BY ME in that it’s a movie about kids made for grownups. It has an inventive first act, and it sustains itself through Act II, but the ending doesn’t dramatically fit the lead up. It’s set in the 1950s and our main character and his friends have drawn their own alter ego comic book super heroes. Periodically through the film the characters come to life in an animated sequence that parallels the live action angst of our hero. I found this to be generally interesting, but it annoyed me that it wasn’t done in 1970s style animation. Would this kid really have imagined the technological advances of the medium?
DEVIL’S PLAYGROUND (2002) - It turns out that Amish kids can run wild when they turn 16 and most do. They’re expected to eventually give it up and join the church and be God fearing in the old tradition and most do that too. This was an interesting documentary about what these kids actually do when the freedom comes. Some of the subjects join up and others go running off. I grew up about 20 minutes from where this was shot so it was particularly interesting for that reason alone.
THE ALAMO (2004) – This was the equivalent of a well made TV movie. The script is adequate. The actors don’t run into the furniture. I was maybe supposed to be thrilled by the battle scenes, but they weren’t particular inventive. We did get to fly with a cannonball once like we fell with that bomb in PEARL HARBOR (2001). Video games use to copy movies and now movies are copying video games. Another similarity to PEARL HARBOR was that this massacre didn’t complete the film. We got to see Sam Houston route Santa Anna like we got to see General Doolittle bomb Japan. We’re not far away from a time in which Romeo and Juliet ends with Mr. Capulet strangling Friar Lawrence and the Nurse.
+ANIMAL HOUSE (1978) – Still good after all these years. Tim Matheson does a decent job leading the film and Belushi is still funny. Bruce McGill plays D-Day, which means nothing except that he’s turned into a very productive character actor. You see him all the time in small roles. He played Ralph Houk in 61 and he played Peter Arnett in LIVE FROM BAGHDAD. He’s also in Collateral, Matchstick Men, Ali, The Sum of All Fears, Bagger Vance, The Insider. . . Why didn’t Tim Matheson have a better career?
+DRESSED TO KILL (1980) De Palma’s Psycho homage. The heroine dies early in the film via the ugly knife. The shower is used in dream sequences. An adultery angle pops up. The killer is fighting multiple personalities, one male and one female. DePalma’s career choices? SNAKE EYES? MISSION TO MARS? Gimme a freakin break.
SECOND HAND LIONS (2003) – Duvall and Caine wasted on an uneven film that changes tone frequently. The title is some sort of obvious symbolism, while the plot reminds one of BIG FISH (2004) without the stylish magic. There are some funny moments early on, but the screenwriter ran out of gas and the director couldn’t keep things together.
A PERFECT CANDIDATE (1996) The movie doesn't seem to take sides in the 1994 Senate race between Oliver North and Chuck Robb. It's mostly about North though and he comes off as earnest, although his campaign manager is a self-promoting jerk. North is gracious in his defeat, but the campaign manager is so self-involved he doesn't even care how his candidate feels. And who knew Chuck Robb was so void of personality. No wonder George Allen defeated him in 2000. The most interesting character in the movie is the Washington Post reporter who follows and asks questions of the candidates. He's totally over Chuck Robb, because Robb claims to have never told a lie. Who hasn't told a lie? A seminal moment is that same reporter asking Robb to clarify his position on strikebreakers. Robb talks in circles and will not answer the question no matter how many ways it is posed.
+TARGETS (1968) – Peter Bogdanovich’s debut was a low budget suspense film produced by Roger Corman. Corman told Bogdanovich that Boris Karloff owed him two days and that he could use 20 minutes from the Karloff picture, THE TERROR. Instead of writing a horror film around the footage, Bogdanovich dreamed up a scenario in which an aging film actor wants to retire while a young man goes on a shooting spree. It’s just a matter of time before the two meet up. It’s full of the gee whiz acting style contrasted by some grizzly shootings.
+SHORT CUTS (1993) I hadn’t seen this since the theatrical release, and at the time I had only seen two Altman films, THE PLAYER the year before and MASH when I was real young. In the last year or so I have seen NASHVILLE, LONG GOODBYE, and THREE WOMEN. I am amazed at how they all have the same soft dreamy camera work and nonchalant pacing style. Of the previous three, I only liked LONG GOODBYE, and I would have liked it better had they stuck to the original Raymond Chandler novel. For all the praise NASHVILLE gets I found it one long snooze. THREE WOMEN was Atlman’s attempt at a weird Euorpean style. SHORT CUTS works better than any of them.
+ASHES AND DIAMONDS (1958) – I just recently came across the name of Andzej Wajda, a man considered Poland’s greatest director. There was a time that I would read about someone like this and just forget all about it. Now we have Netflix. Zbigniew Cybulski is a young man who is part of an underground movement to rid Poland of Communists shortly after the war. The movie begins with he and his boss offing a couple of dudes thought to be the new communist leaders coming to town. They got the wrong guys. The rest of the movie takes place inside their hotel where the real communist leader is also staying. Cybulski is ready to try it all over again, but in the interim he meets and romances the fetching young bartender, Eva Krzyewska. Our character is therefore torn between having a normal life with Eva and carrying out his duty to the resistance. If Eva is the standard looking Eastern European babe, it’s no wonder it took them so long to tear the iron curtain down. Who could keep their mind on the revolution?
HAPPY ACCIDENTS (1999) From Director Brad Anderson, the guy who just directed the MACHINIST with Christian Bale’s weight loss. Kooky actor Vincent D'Onofrio plays a kooky character that may be from the year 2470. Marisa Tomei plays his wacky girlfriend that alternates between playing along with him for the excitement and getting angry at his active imagination. These actors are both better as supporting players. They don’t have enough of that heroic magnetism to make you root for them. The payoff is somewhat interesting if you make it that far. I was ready for it to end.
THE CROSSING GUARD (1995) – This is a perplexing movie at first sight. It’s written and directed by Sean Penn, a man who couldn’t put a single coherent thought together in one hour on the Larry King show in 2002. Penn’s case that night of the wonderful people in Iraq and why we shouldn’t go to war was nothing but emoting through a string of disjointed words and phrases that lacked argument, evidence and conclusion. It might go down as the perfect example of how artists are ill equipped to function in the real world. The CROSSING GUARD is full of the same kinds of unfocused emoting, but it works here somewhat better. Jack Nicholson and Anjelica Huston split up after their daughter was killed by a drunk driver. The driver (David Morse) is getting out of prison at the beginning of the film and Jack plans to put a hole in him. The plot gets no deeper. Morse feels as bad as Jack and they spend the movie in parallel despair. It’s certainly the kind of movie made by someone who likes to see acting rather than story. If you add this movie to his other directorial effort, THE PLEDGE and the Eastwood film, MYSTIC RIVER, the Robbins film DEAD MAN WALKING one would get the idea that Penn is building an entire portion of his career around the murdered daughter plot device.
HURLY BURLY (1998) – One of those showcase for actors movies that gets a top notch cast because the characters get to do so many random and exciting things. For the audience waiting to see how this slice of life nonsense fits together, it’s less thrilling. There’s a few moments and even some decently written dialogue, but it falls short of something I would call either art or entertainment. My old theatre teacher, Susan Harper labeled this category as actor masturbation.
+EMPEROR’S CLUB (2002) – Kline is a classics teacher in one of those typical Eastern prep schools circa 1975. Emile Hirsch (one of the kids from DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTER BOYS) plays the rebellious kid that Kline must set straight. It has something interesting to say about how teachers sometimes waste effort on bad kids that cannot be reached at the expense of kids that could better use and appreciate that same help. It also has much to say about the inherit value of personal virtue. The movie doesn’t denigrate capitalism or the real world, but appreciates the successful graduates who learned their lesson in that school. You’d expect the rebellious kid to be redeemed through efforts of the great teacher, but instead he’s proven dishonest twice, once as a student and later as a candidate for the Senate. As the Senate candidate he repeats the hackneyed lines about the importance of education that as we know he doesn’t believe. His donation to his Alma Matter is nothing but cheap political opportunism. This film is about the inherent value of education not a propagation of the institutions or processes that masquerade as education while functioning as jobs programs and daycare. Since I spent the better part of the movie trying to guess the liberal twist, I was surprised to find a conservative movie that didn’t apologize for it.
+61* (2001) – I had no patience for reading when I was a kid. But meeting Mickey Mantle when I was 7 changed my life. I started reading books about Mantle and the Yankees. Reading those books led to other baseball books and I eventually wrote Roger Maris a letter asking for his autograph and he kindly sent me his signature only a few years before his early death from smoking. Mickey would eventually succumb to the drink and both habits can be witnessed in the painfully accurate Billy Crystal movie. I saw it again last night for the 5th or 6th time. Will McGwire, Sosa and Bonds someday die from the effects of Steroids? Crystal uses CGI to great effect and he has a real love for the material. Mel Allen and Scooter Rizzuto are fun. Yogi has a couple of Yogi lines. Whitey Ford pipes in from time to time. It's hard to get over how much Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane look like Maris and Mantle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)