hrlaser Reviews

Taken (2002)

Nothing new, and way too long..

[15 December 2002]

Fifty years ago, Klaatu landed his saucer on a baseball diamond in Washington DC, was surrounded by Army tanks and soldiers. The saucer opens, a ramp extends, out he walks holding a device in his hand and what happens? A soldier fires at him, shooting the device out of his hand and destroying it.

Have we come any farther than this in the treatment of superior race, highly advanced aliens after fifty years of film making? Not really.. not at all. Technologically, we have CGI spaceships instead of painted plywood.

"Taken" had its moments of brilliance, but this 20 hours of over-padded nonsense, loaded down with so many commercials by the SciFi Network as it was (If I NEVER see one of those IBM commercials again, it'll be too soon).. seemed to be leading up to something, to some final conclusion of utter joy and brilliance, and it just simply didn't get there. The ending, which I will not spoil, was an enormous letdown..

I won't try to detail the plot, which spans fifty years, if you're reading this you've probably read a bajillion other comments and know what it's all about anyway, but I will hit two things that really stuck out in my mind..

a) Little Dakota Fanning, as Ally, is an absolutely AMAZING actress, showing a depth of range and ability that is nothing short of astounding. I can't imagine how good she will be, or at least potentially could be, as she gets older.. I wish her the best of luck. She was easily the best actor in this marathon..

b) Matt Frewer, as a brilliant, wise-cracking alien scientist and researcher caused his own demise in on of the shows final hours, with one of the most absurd, unconvincing, hackneyed bits of contrived stupidity imaginable.. in this age of cell phones, he turns his back on "Mary Crawford" within earshot of her while she's taking a shower, just feet away from him in a hotel room, and picks up the room phone to make a call to expose her evil intent. For crying out loud, he saw her have her own father killed, showing absolutely no remorse.. why in the world wouldn't he have gone outside the room, outside the hotel, and made that call with a cell phone? Dooming himself the way he did was incredibly cheap writing, and while it was unexpected, it was also totally illogical for his character to have sacrificed himself so easily..

This twenty hour snooze-a-thon could've been distilled down to two or three two hour segments, and not lost anything at all, and been better for the shortening in every way. As it was, I got the feeling the producers made it 20 hours long (minus endless commercials) just to prove they could do it.

It didn't give us anything new at all. The ending was a gross letdown.

While they're not science fiction, if you ever want to see two absolutely brilliantly written and acted television mini-series, watch "Shogun" and "Roots." Those are commercial television at its finest.

Harv

RKO 281 (1999 TV Movie)

Good.. could've been much better..

[3 June 2002]

You've probably read a lot of other comments, so I'll spare you the details of what "RKO 281" is about.. rather, my comments pertain to made-for-HBO films, particularly this one..

HBO's movies always strike me as a cut above the usual made for the small screen fare, but just a notch below being theatrical quality. There's a strange feeling of being manipulated, that I get from almost all their films, especially biopics like this one, "Truman", and their latest "Path To War" which they're running this month. HBO likes to take on monumental, historical characters, like Orson Welles, Harry S Truman, and LBJ, but seems to always surround them with characters who are portrayed as being slightly dumb, and made to look like fools, on purpose. It's as though HBO is telling us to look back into history and laugh at how naive and silly people were in decades past.. look at the dumb clothes they wore, the silly hairstyles, their mannerisms, while at the same time idealizing them..

In these kinds of films, cars are never dirty or dented. People never flub their words when speaking to each other. Homes and offices are always a paragon of cleanliness. Everything looks brand new. Staged. Too perfect.. Okay, perhaps realism is not what we want in our movies.. we live in homes that have dirty dishes in the sink and rumbled towels in the bathroom, and stacks of magazines on the tables.. but there ARE period films in which the "lived in" look IS quite well done.. witness Bob Raefelson's "The Postman Always Rings Twice."

While the set and art direction of "RKO 281" is stunning, everything is beautiful to look at: all the vast, wood-panelled offices of the Hollywood moguls, somehow, everything has an artificial look to it.

And then, there's Liev Schreiber's portrayal of a young Orson Wells.. Again, sometimes HBO can create a convincing lookalike - Gary Sinese as Harry S Truman was right on the money, Michael Gambon as LBJ comes sort of close, but doesn't quite ring true, but Schreiber simply doesn't look or sound anything like Orson Welles did. Welles had a booming baritone voice, an in-your-face style of projecting his words, and a simply riveting screen presence. Schreiber's lack of a jaw, and his delivery simply never convinced me that this man was Orson Welles.. This is not to take away from Schreiber's acting abilities at all.. he was simply the wrong actor for the part. And since he is the centerpiece of the film, the entire film suffers because of his weak Welles clone..

However, "RKO 281" _is_ worth watching, if just for the lush sets and atmospherics, and the far too few glimpses we get of the making of "Citizen Kane." But again, HBO made this film as a drama, not a documentary, and a drama relies on conflict.. and thus the film concentrates on the clash of personalities, not the creation of the best film ever made..

The Time Machine (2002)

Hollywood blows it again..

[14 March 2002]

Poor H.G. Wells.. he must be wearing grooves in his grave from all the spinning by now.

About the only thing this film (yet another attempt at an updated remake of George Pal's timeless 1960 feature) has in common with his novel of the same name is tht there's a time machine in it, the destination year of 802,701, a race of people called Eloi, another called Morlocks, and hmm.. can't think of anything else!

Pal's film is one of my favorites, and as such, this new one was a gross disappointment to me, except for some very good effects sequences - the time travel and Moon shots.. in fact with a nice sharp pair of scissors, I think I could edit this film down to about ten worthwhile minutes out of over two hours of padding and dreck.

Wells' entire premise for his protagonist's time travel adventures is summarily thrown in the dumpster, in favor of turning his driving motivation into a love story. Fine, make another movie out of that, but it's not Wells' vision.

** SPOILERS AHEAD **

In Pal's 1960 classic, Rod Taylor as Wells, the time traveller, was always VERY careful to lock his machine, or remove its stick shift before leaving it.. here we have Guy Pearce getting out of his machine in 2030, and wandering through the NY Public Library for who knows how long, leaving his machine in an alley way for anyone to stumble on and mess with.

The device used to destroy humanity as we know it in the new film _was_ a stunning idea, but still, it stretches the imagination to think that a 20 megaton bomb could split the Moon apart..

Flash forward 800,000 years and the Eloi this time around are a dark skinned race of shaved head, tattooed jungle people whose most beautiful inhabitant is a Janet Jackson lookalike. Throw in a child actor for no good reason at all.

And someone really has to explain to me how crumbled remains of New York could survive erosion, winds, the sands of time, and glaciers for 8000 centuries, while we watch rivers carve out entire valleys, and mountains of rock blow away as so much dust.. if that isn't enough of a stretch, explain to me how a holographic library docent could survive for 800,000 years. Who was oiling his gears all that time? What was the power source that lasted that long?

Even in the beautiful time-travel effects sequences, nothing much makes sense.. as the scale of time keeps changing depending, apparently, on what the director wants you to dwell on.. if you're going into the future at such a rapid speed that you can see mountains erode in seconds, you are _not_ going to see individual trees spring up in a meadow.

Okay, so forget all that. Chalk it up to Hollywood not expecting its audience to ask such questions. But why pollute Wells' classic story with new elements cut out of whole cloth and inserted for reasons we can only guess at? There was no "Uber Morlock" in the book or the original film.

And riddle me this - how did Pearce know what effect throwing his pocket watch into the gears of his time machine would have? Did he build a bunch of them and figure out ways he could make them explode back in 1900 first? The effects shot of him and Samba or Mumbo or whatever her name is, jumping out of the blast field is nearly a direct ripoff of Arnold jumping out of the Predator's blast field at the end of that fine film.. Watch the bad guys get vaporized while the hero and his playmate barely escape.. sigh.. how many times have we seen this schtick?

Some films are simply classics that do NOT need to be remade, and 1960's The Time Machine was one of them. Or if you're going to remake it, at least be honest to the original, like the 1980s remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers was.

Otherwise, please, don't waste our time.

Read the book and see the 1960 film if you really want to know what The Time Machine was about.

The Sex Monster (1999)

Mike Binder is no Woody Allen..

[8 February 2002]

If Binder sold HBO on his pathetic "Mind of the Married Man" series based on having written and directed and starred in this film, it wouldn't surprise me, as both had a lot of the same elements and ideas, and both were equally lame.

Binder is no Woody Allen. For that matter, he's no Albert Brooks either. He's not even a Gene Wilder, about the most unlikely actor for a sex farce I can imagine, but then maybe women see some kind of appeal to that sad puppy personna..

But someone must think Binder is funny, else they wouldn't be throwing money at him as HBO did..

Sex Monster (don't let the title deceive you.. this isn't a movie about Godzilla humping Tokyo).. can be taken as a prequel to Mind of the Married Man with one exception.. instead of fantasizing and visualizing in his mind, other women in bed with his wife, this film explores the possibilities in a very tame way. If you're looking for Mariel Hemingway nude, forget it. In fact for a sex romp, this film has alarmingly little nudity at all. Lots of tease shots, and women moaning and groaning behind a closed bedroom door, one almost topless shot in a swimming pool, that's about it.

Mariel Hemingway, still gorgeous after all these years, and quite a screen presence, plays Binder's straight and faithful wife to whom he pitches the idea of a second woman in bed with them.. most every guy's unfulfilled fantasy.. at first put off by the concept, she aims to please him, she warms to it, then dives face first, as it were, into it, to the point that he got what he wished for and now he wants to un-wish it..

The way this film was shot and edited reminds me of an even tamer version of the way "adult" hardcore videos are presented on tape, versus how they end up on channels like "Spice" where you see the tops of a lot of heads bobbing up and down..

I kept waiting and waiting for the big payoff.. but this is a sex film with no "money shot", both literally and figuratively.

It's a one line joke that somehow got stretched to an hour an a half, and it moves at such a glacial pace that I actually fell asleep the first time I tried to watch it.

Mariel Hemingway is still beautiful, still talented, and she deserves to be pitched much better scripts than this one, and someone needs to tell Binder that his fantasies are simply just not rip-roaringly hilarious..

Epoch (2001 TV Movie)

When in doubt, shoot at it..

[2/10 · 27 November 2001]

Epoch is a film with an interesting, although re-hashed, derivative premise, harkening back to everything from 2001 to Sphere, this "Made for the SciFi Channel" (!?) film had interesting possibilities, but was unfortunately ruined by acting so wooden that Pinocchio seems downright voluptuous in comparison..

A mysterious "thing" crashes into Earth four billion years ago, and just as mysteriously erupts out of the ground near the Chinese border, present day, causing worldwide electronic glitches, immediately attracting the attention of the shadowy gubmint agency in DC who decides it's their job to find out what it is, send in the G.I. Joes to surround it, call in the world's smartest guy (David Keith??) to figure out its purpose, and make sure the Chinese don't get at it.

How convienient that it appears in some stinkin' desert somewhere, and not in the middle of, oh, I dunno, Cleveland.. this way the cast can be kept small, and the effects a lot easier to accomplish..

Some of the special effects, particularly the long shots of the thing, which resembles a tornado funnel made out of rock, are well executed.

The thing has mysterious powers, seemingly able to bring the dead back to life, and heal the maladies of anyone who gets near it, including the terminally ill character played by Keith.

But this whole premise is blown to bits (eventually literally).. by the horrible acting and dialog that sounds like it was written in a high school class. Ryan O'Neal and Craig Wasson, both of whom have practically carried entire films by themselves (Barry Lyndon and Body Double for two examples).. are totally wasted in minor roles. The Chinese who confront the Americans, both diplomatically and militarily, are cardboard cutout cartoon characters.

And the military sent along to keep the Chinese away from the thing while they guard the scientific probing, and eventually ordered to destroy it, are simply interchangable, unthinking, faceless toy soldiers, incapable of independent thought. This reminds me of the early scenes of the original Stargate film, where, right after being transported to the other side of the Universe, the soldiers accompanying the geek Egyptologist, have absolutely NO sense of wonder and amazement, but rather, they entertain themselves by throwing his research books at him.

Since the time of The Day The Earth Stood Still, when all Klaatu wanted to do was give the Earth leaders a groovy gift and got thanked by having it shot out of his hand, and in a multitude of other films since, Hollywood has taught us that when we are confronted with something of superior intellect, or of mysterious origins, if we don't understand it, if it doesn't look like a fluffy kittie, we are to shoot first, and ask questions later.

"Guns, guns, guns - is the signal we want to send this thing?" Asks Keith early on in the film.. although he is called in to analyze the thing, almost everything he suggests is summarily ignored, laughed at, or cast aside because, well, I suppose your average 12 year old viewer finds constant machine gun fire much more compelling viewing than a lot of talking or philosophical speculation. This is *exactly* the kind of film for people who hated 2001 because they didn't get it.

If all this wasn't enough, Epoch has one of the stupidest, pat endings in my recent memory.

What could've been a fascinating film is thus turned into unintentionally humorous dreck. Will humanity ever learn? Not if Hollywood has anything to say about it..

House on Haunted Hill (1959)

Wm. Castle's best.. perfect for Halloween!

[25 October 2001]

In 1958 I was nine and many screamers, like "House on Haunted Hill" filled theatres for the teen crowd. I was too young to see this in the local movie house, but it made it to television a couple years later and was a regular staple, along with Castle's other pieces, on Saturday afternoon shows such as "Chiller". I probably watched HoHH dozens of times as a kid, and it gave me some very serious nightmares back then, but it seemed to vanish from the small screen for a very long time.. finally, I caught it last night, commercial-free on Turner Classic Movies, for the first time in at least 25 years.

Viewed with an adult's skeptical viewpoint, this is really a pretty awful film. It tries so hard to be horrific, but it's hard to watch Vincent Price, a much missed, very cultured and smart guy (read his biography some time) and not think he had one really good time making this film.. it's absolutely one of his best performances in his long career.

By now you probably know the plot, but briefly, a wacky millionaire rents a big old spooky house for a night and invites five people he doesn't know to spend the night there on a dare, telling them if they make it through alive to the next morning he'll give each of them $10,000.00. Hey, that was big money in 1958.

The guests all arrive in hearses, and quickly get to know each other, but why were they invited? None of them know.

The house itself, a strange architectural style, looking almost like a fortress from the outside, is quite Victorian on the inside, and reminds me a lot of Disneyland's Haunted Mansion.. velvet curtains and wallpaper, candle-filled chandeliers, big old wooden doors everywhere, lots of creepy dark corners, not the kind of place you'd want to spend the night alone, especially not after its owner tells you it's haunted, and that there are a couple of unaccounted for heads bouncing around the place..

Okay so what makes a bad film so good?

An awful lot of screen time is spent following the seven characters (the five guests, Price and his bitchy wife who wants his fortune) go in and out of bedrooms, up and down hallways, down to the basement, into closets, behind mysterious curtains.. it seems like none of them can stay put for more than a couple minutes at a time. You will get to know this house, or at least parts of it, quite well, as the camera tracks and pans around the same rooms and hallways an endless number of times. C'mon.. just lock yourself in your room, read a book, wait till morning and collect your money.. but NoooOoOooo..

And then there's the basement, which, oddly enough, has a huge vat of acid under the floor.. closets with secret spaces between the walls, lights that go on and off by themselves, doors that open and close for no reason.. eeek!

And oy the screaming. A sexy young female character named Nora, apparently one of Price's steno pool girls invited quite by random to the party, screams and screams until you'd think her tonsils are going to fly out of her mouth. She makes you wonder where the poor girl gets the strength. Nora is the epitome of every 1950s horror movie screaming girl you've ever seen, but again, wonderfully portrayed.

And if you thought any one of these characters should lock herself in her bedroom until down, Nora would be the one you'd pick. Does she? Hah! Fat chance! Handsome leading man Richard Long obviously has eyes for Nora, and she for him, but just when you think there's a remote chance for an embrace and a kiss, something horrible happens again..

Blood dripping from ceilings. An old woman who floats across the floor. A haunted rope that snakes in through the barred window and wraps itself around its victim's feet, a woman hanging from a noose in the hallway, seven people running around through this mayhem with guns, that vat of acid in the basement that you just KNOW is going to be put to good use before the titles roll.. All of this is both hilariously cliche' and yet somehow devilishly spooky at the same time. And these little set pieces just add to the images that HoHH will burn into your mind.

HoHH would be up high on my list of Halloween movies, along with John Carpenter's film of that title, both versions of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, and both version of The Thing.

Modern remakes of horror classics CAN be done well, as the remakes of IotBS and The Thing prove. Unfortunately, the remake of HoHH, except for a wonderfully shocking first 15 minutes, is pure dreck, and just besmirches the memory of Castle's wonderful masterpiece.

Thanks again to cable channels like TCM and AMC who show these old films commercial-free, as they should be seen. It's almost like having the Saturday matinees back again..

Strange Days (1995)

Hello? Anyone remember Brainstorm!? ..

[9 July 2001]

I'm dumbfounded that in all the commercial and user reviews I've read so far about "Strange Days", especially those that describe its central element of the "playback" device as being such an original one, reviewers (and shame on Ebert for not mentioning this) are ignoring the fact that in 1983, there was a much superior big budget film, Douglas Trumball's "Brainstorm" which used exactly the same kind of device - put on a headpiece and put yourself in the brain of someone else, living experiences they had had, and recorded, through all your senses.

No, "Brainstorm" doesn't have that dark and dirty look that seems so popular these days. But it has many more truly memorable scenes that stick in the mind forever.. Christopher Walken experiencing Louise Fletcher's death when he plays back the "toxic" tape. Walken and Wood's rapture under the sheets. The Brainstorm company salesman, stuck in an all-night orgasmic frenzy, to the point of collapse as he plays back a looped sequence from a tape a lab engineer had recorded while he was being humped by a sexy blonde.

"Strange Days" has nothing to equal these scenes still vivid in my mind from a film I saw 18 years ago, compared to one I saw yesterday.

And given the choice of watching Walken and the radiant Wood (in her final film appearance) as married lovers, versus Ralph Fiennes and Juliette "Look! I'm reprising my role from 'Natural Born Killers' again for the 29th time!" Lewis, well to me, there just ain't much to decide.. Someone needs to take Ms. Lewis out back and tell her that the harder she tries to appear sexy, the less she is..

There's absolutely NOTHING original about "Strange Days." From the device itself, to the dark gang-infested streets, to the year-early Millennium hysteria (you want Hollywood hysteria? Try watching "Miracle Mile" sometime!)

Nearly all reviews mention the "Blade Runner-ish" noir look it has, and the original concept of the playback device. This is an extremely derivative film with almost no original ideas wrapped in a very nicely photographed, forgettable package. People sure have short memories, and Hollywood sure has no more original ideas..

I'm still waiting for the $150 million "Hazel, The Movie" and "Strange Days" just tells me that sooner or later, it'll come..

Three to Tango (1999)

A tired old plot device that goes nowhere..

[10 May 2001]

There's a scene in "Three to Tango" in which the two leads, Neve Campbell and Matthew Perry, are platonically (Well, she is, he really isn't..).. cuddling on his sofa, as they watch Laurence Harvey and Kim Novak in bed together in 1964's remake of "Of Human Bondage." Let's just say that if you're looking for a GOOD romantic movie to rent, leave the former on the shelf and rent the latter, which is a masterpiece of a tear-jerker and doesn't pretend to be something it's not, as does the former.

The two films make an unintentionally ironic comparison of just how good actors used to be, and just how bad they are these days. I couldn't help but grin as I watched Neve Campbell watching Kim Novak and nearly shouted at the screen "See, Neve?? Now THAT'S Acting!"

How many times have we seen the "Three to Tango" plot in the past ten years? A couple million? A case of mistaken intentions and identities as the girl Perry loves must continue to believe he's gay, and thus "safe" to confide in and even live with, because he must pretend to be gay to keep his lucrative contract with the rich jerk who has assigned him to spy on her.. The same rich jerk who she believes she's in love with. Why? If she's so smart and so streetwise and hip and savvy, can't she see what a fool he's playing her for? Of course not, because, if she could, there'd be no movie, would there..

Neve Campbell is nice to look with her ample figure almost falling out of every low-cut costume she's poured into, but at the same time she crosses the line over into the county known as annoying. She forces her cuteness and sexyness, but she doesn't have to.

Matthew Perry plays the same character he plays in "Friends" with a different cast in a different situation, but the badly-written and terribly predictable script don't give him a whole lot to work with.. nevertheless, he has a certain appeal as he scrunches up his lower lip in his continual quest for the unobtainable.

Oliver Platt as Perry's non-gay gay business partner is really the most gifted actor in this film, while Dylan McDermott's one-dimensional rich bad guy is pure cardboard.

The plot device driving this whole thing is just old and tired and in the case of "Three To Tango", simply unfunny.

Will the right guy get the girl before the end titles roll? Do you really have to ask?

S.O.B. (1981)

Masterpiece? I think not.. and here's why..

[25 April 2001]

Blake Edwards, in his long career churned out many memorable films, not the least of which were the wonderful, but uneven, Pink Panther series, and, my favorite, the Bo Derek vehicle "10", easily Dudley Moore's best film.. just thinking about poor lovesick Moore hotfooting his way across a Mexican beach, or trying to explain who he is after a long dentist's visit and too much brandy and painkillers, makes me chuckle..

In "S.O.B." Edwards tried to expose/dissect/shred the inner workings of Hollywood, the rivalries, deals, back-stabbing, all as a film-within-a-film, a dismal flop called "Nightwind" is being re-made by hapless Felix Farmer (Richard Mulligan, who earned his claim to fame in the TV series "SOAP")..

In 1981, S.O.B. was looked upon as daring. It has not aged well.

It's two hours that feels double that length.. it has its moments but I found it for the most part, insufferably self-indulgent and brimming with poorly-executed good ideas.

Watching it twice on HBO this month I couldn't help but think how distracting the Disco era wardrobe was.. how so many films have done certain similar pivotal scenes so much better.. "9 to 5"'s stealing a body from a Funeral Home was 100 times funnier than the one acted out in "S.O.B." Hard as this may be to say, "Weekend at Bernie's" excruciatingly reptitive jokes about transporting around a corpse were absolutely hilarious compared to the way Edwards tries to pull off the same routine..

A lot of "S.O.B." is like that - you feel like you're being set up for something truly hilarious, but the payoff is a huge let-down..

And the yelling.. and more yelling.. if there's one thing that grinds my gears, it's films in which nearly *every* character spends much of their on-screen time YELLING. One-dimensional Loretta Swit with her enormous Steven Tyler mouth is the worst offender here. Mulligan doesn't know the meaning of the word "finesse." Julie Andrews and so many others are guilty of this too, and her much-touted topless scene is, well, just plain lame. It's just another very long buildup to a disappointment. (Although a brief topless scene with a very young Rosanna Arquette almost makes up for it ;)..

The film is absolutely chocked-full of legendary actors, and the late Robert "The Music Man" Preston as a wacko flaming Doctor to the stars, (with the film's worst hair-styling).. easily steals every scene he's in. But it's still not enough to save this self-indulgent shoutfest.

"S.O.B." leaves me feeling like I'm watching some kind of huge Hollywood in-joke that never truly draws me in. I always felt like an outsider, watching some very good actors, playing very bad actors, playing very bad actors. If you want to see Edwards at the peak of his Directorial skills, doing a truly fine dark comedy, leave this one on the shelf and watch "10" instead.

Lulu on the Bridge (1998)

Remarkably disturbing film with a terrible title!!..

[10/10 · 16 March 2001]

I caught this film on HBO and it was really quite a remarkable experience. I had never heard of it before, and checking the "External Reviews" Link, I'm surprised so little of the mass critic media never reviewed it, such as Roger Ebert.

The title of this film is completely deceptive.. you'd think it's a kiddie film.. trust me, it's anything but. It has NOTHING to do with "Little LuLu" or kids for that matter.

This is a deeply disturbing, involving, dark, mysterious mystery/romance/thriller with some fantasy elements, but totally without glitz or pretension, beautifully filmed and acted, with a twist ending right out of Ambrose Bierce. Saying any more about the plot would spoil it, so that's all you get out of me..

I will say this.. if you enjoyed "Jacobs Ladder" you'll like this one.

Even more so, if the title "Occurance At Owl Creek Bridge" means anything to you, then you'll know what I'm talking about.

As to the two leads: Mira Sorvino is absolutely stunningly beautiful and radiant and you simply can NOT take your eyes off her.. she goes through a myriad of hairstyles and styles of clothing, everything from bed-wear (lingerie), to around-town casual, to elaborate film costuming (she acts in a film towards the end of _this_ film), and she is totally convincing, believable, and riveting.

Harvey Keitel delivers an absolutely gut-wrenching performance - as good as anything I've ever seen him do.. considering the emotions required of his character, and what he's put through, he too is totally convincing and riveting.

Here you have a pair of leads who spend a LOT of on-screen time together in a VERY complicated and mysterious relationship and they meld with each other almost perfectly.

The supporting cast is also excellent. Willem DaFoe does fine work in one of his dark, sinister trademark characters. The other big-name actors, including a cameo by Lou Reed as "Not Lou Reed" are solid as you could want.

This is an engrossing, engaging, adult film that for some reason, the critics almost completely ignored. Why?

If you sit down to watch it, watch it from end to end without interruptions.. you will be drawn into it, and involved and aborbed in it and when it ends, quite unexpectedly, you'll be left with some very interesting emotions.

If only they had given it a more suitable title..

9 out of 10 on a scale of 10.

Another Stakeout (1993)

The duct tape was on the wrong mouth..

[2/10 · 29 January 2001]

As a contributor to the Internet Movie Cliches List, I gotta tell ya, this dog could contribute a page full all by its horrible self..

"Last Action Hero" perfectly parodied the obligatory scene of the Police Captain chewing out his beloved street cop with much yelling and hand-waving, and when this same tired routine is used near the beginning of "Another Stakeout" you just can't help but cringe, wondering how many other cliches this loser is going to be crammed with..

If that's not trite enough.. the buddies are issued a fire engine red Mercedes sports car and warned by the cop car shop technician, as he buffs off a smudge with his lab coat, to return it in perfect shape because it's going to be auctioned. Well, guess what kids, it's your job to figure out how the car's going to be ruined. How many times have we been through this before?

While Dreyfuss and Esteves are well-paired, and keep up the humorous banter, this is one of those "Buddy Cops Who Vacillate Between Light, Good-Natured Comedy And Senseless Violence" comedy-action films that Hollywood grinds out with alarming repetiveness. Everyone involved in this piece of dreck has done better work.. well, except for one actress and I think you know where I'm going with that..

In a protracted scene, Esteves is bound and gagged with duct tape and thrown in a cellar when he's mistaken by the woman he's been charged to keep track of as an assassin she's previously escaped from. Early on in the film, she somehow escaped from a safe house where she's being held before she testifies against The Mob, on the fringes of Las Vega$ when hit man Miguel Ferrer blows it up, in a scene filmed from so many different angles you just know it was so expensive they were only going to do it once.

Well, the duct tape was on the wrong mouth. It belonged on Rosie O'Donnell's gaping maw. She plays and overplays an Assistant D.A. put in charge of overseeing the Stakeout. Whatever casting directors thought this woman has feature film potential should have been thrown the cellar, bound and gagged along with her. She's every bit as loud, obnoxious, and UN-funny as any film I've ever squirmed through with her in it.

In fact, an awful lot of talent is wasted in this snoozer. Badham has directed much better, more memorable action films. Dreyfuss, well.. I can't help but wonder why he stooped this low. Cathy Moriarty is the one-dimensional witness on the run. Miguel Ferrer who can be absolutely riveting with the proper material is a cardboard cutout hit man. The rest are basically throwaway parts the actors slept through except for Dennis Farina, as one half of the rich couple who secludes Moriarty in their ultra posh lake-side Seattle home which is the setting for the subject Stakeout. Farina actually steals some scenes from Dreyfuss along the way. He's one actor you just can't take your eyes off of, because even with material this bad, he is simply that good.

Oh, and lest I forget, throughout the film he's trying to patch up his relationship with his on-again, off-again fiancee, Madeleine Stowe, a woman so humorless you can't help but wonder what, except her looks, Dreyfuss' character could possibly see in her.

The obligatory climactic shoot-out, along with the equally obligatory quick disposal of some backup detectives, immediately followed by the obligatory happy ending wrap up a film that had SO much good talent in its credits (except for O'Donnell who should stick to daytime gossip shows..).. could've been SO much better, but yet again we have a sequel that just didn't need to be made.

Nick of Time (1995)

An edge-of-your-seat thrill ride!

[25 December 2000]

I caught this film on HBO today and was immediately sucked into it and couldn't take my eyes off the screen from beginning to end. Walken turns in one of his best bad guy performances since "True Romance" - he is very good at instilling dread and fear with his piercing stare and his deadpan delivery, and yet, in a film like "The Dead Zone" he can be as sympathetic a character as any you have ever seen. For an actor with only a couple of expressions, he has a range that is quite hard to pin down.

Johnny Depp is a chameleon of an actor, playing roles as varied as Edward Scissorhands and Hunter Thompson in the highly underrated "Fear and Loathing in Las Vega$." Here, he's an Everyman, thrust unwillingly into a situation from which there is seemingly no easy escape, or, perhaps, no escape at all.

Nick of Time boils down to Depp and his daughter, kidnapped at L.A.'s Union Station, tossed in a van by two fake FBI agents who then tell him he must kill the Governor of California by 1:30 pm or his young daughter will be killed. Simple as that. The remaining 90 minutes, played out in "real time", (or close to it..).. incorporate some amazing direction inside and around L.A.'s Bonaventure Hotel, which, if you've ever been inside it, you know is an utterly confusing labyrinth of glass towers, fountains, circular hallways, and this strange space lends itself perfectly to the taught confusion and tension the film tries to project.

Your job, as viewer is to try to figure out who is part of the assassination conspiracy, and who can be trusted. It ain't easy. Your other job is to put yourself in Depp's shoes.. what would you do?

Charles Dutton shines in his supporting role of a disabled American veteran shoe-shine man in the hotel lobby.

While this film got tepid reviews, in this case, I think the mainstream reviewers were wrong. It isn't Hitchcock, no, and Depp is not supposed to be a super-hero either. Just a plain guy thrust into a situation which is sheer nightmare in nature, but with enough wit and wiles to try to find a solution. Marsha Mason is also solid as the Governor.

Well-worth renting or catching on cable. Riveting. Taut. An all-around nail-biting thrill ride. Don't miss it!

One from the Heart (1981)

Simply a masterpiece of the art of Filmmaking..

[10/10 · 28 October 2000]

This is the 1982 film that bankrupted Coppola's Zoetrope Studios. I went to the post-bankruptcy auction and all the props and costumes from the film were on display on the soundstage in Hollywood where the fake Fremont Street was built.

The title sequence was NOT computer-generated, although Coppola used motion control cameras. Those are all hand-built miniatures, a foot or two high, of some classic Vega$ hotel casino signs from the 1950s. They were all for sale at the bankruptcy auction.. I only wish I had had the greenbacks in my wallet to take one home with me.

(Other reviewers refer to the dance number taking place on "The Strip" - it was on a faux reconstruction, using extreme forced perspective, of a couple blocks of Downtown Vega$' famous Fremont Street long before they shut it down to traffic and installed the light-show canopy known as the Fremont Street Experience.. but I digress..

Coppola made a film about an on and off love affair in Vega$ over the Fourth of July and didn't shoot a frame of it in that city. It is nearly the purest filmic definition of eye candy I have ever seen.

The film was roundly panned by almost every critic around when it was released, save Sheila Benson in the L.A. Times who loved it and said "It will have its day." Well look at the reviews here.. although nearly 20 years have passed, it's finally being recognized for the masterpiece of film that it is.

No, there's not much of a plot. A couple falls in and out of love, tempted by others and consoled by a pair of friends. The sextet of lead actors is superb. One or more of them is in every scene and there are very few minor roles.

The soundtrack by Tom Waits and the songs sung mainly as duets by him and Crystal Gayle are modern jazzy-pop masterpieces too.. and they act as a Greek Chorus, fitting in perfectly with whatever is happening on the screen. If you like this movie, get the soundtrack. You will listen to it many many times.

Coppola used a huge number of effects in this film including theatrical scrims, false walls, mirror effects, huge panoramic backdrops of sunsets.. you can but sit back and soak it all in as it bathes you in its beauty.

This is one of a very few films that I loved so much that I immediately bought its original VHS retail version when it was released, bought the soundtrack on LP and actually wore it out, bought another one, and bought the CD version.

It might not tell an important story in the grand scheme of things.. the plot is small to non-existant. That's not the point. The point is that this is true evidence of the genius of a modern filmmaker pulling out all the stops and literally to make something he cared about deeply.

If you're looking for thrill-a-minute action, go elsewhere. If you're looking for a simple love story wrapped in a work of sheer artistic beauty then Watch it.. watch it repeatedly.. and bask in its wonderful rainbow. Unique among modern films. A+.

Dumb and Dumber (1994)

One of the funniest films ever made..

[14 September 2000]

Picking a top ten list of the best comedy films ever made is a lot more difficult than, say, picking the best Science Fiction films, War films, Westerns, or many other genres. Comedy ain't easy to do. It's tough to sustain a level of hilarity for over an hour and a half, but Dumb and Dumber ranks right up there with the best comedies ever put on film. It is consistantly hilarious from beginning to end. A non-stop romp "buddy" film in which just as you think it couldn't possibly get any more absurd, it does.

Asked my favorite comedy of all time, it'd still probably be Planes, Trains and Automobiles, oddly enough, another buddy film. Dumb and Dumber would be in my top three. Why? Well, Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels are simply superb. Carrey has built his entire career on portraying rubber-faced idiots. Daniels, however, has a much more eclectic body of work, but as an idiot, this is absolutely his finest hour.

This film is rude, crude, obnoxious, loud, uproarious, and if you don't find yourself with tears of laughter streaming down your face at some point, then you're probably either unconscious or asleep.

Daniels graces us with what is the single best toilet scene ever put to film. In the grand scheme of things, that may not be saying a lot, but compare it to other similar scenes like the one in "American Pie" or the farting scene in "Blazing Saddles" and you'll get what I'm talking about. If his experience after unknowingly gulping down a bottle of "Turbo Lax" doesn't have you howling, then there's something seriously wrong with you.

A very very VERY funny film. One of the best comedies of all time. Highly recommended. Twelve thumbs up.

American Pie (1999)

Seen the trailer? You've seen the movie..

[13 September 2000]

This is one of those numerous films that, once you've seen the ad or trailer, you pretty much know the whole story. The purpose of a trailer is get you psyched up to come back to see the film. Well, in the case of "American Pie", most all the good parts ARE in the trailer.

If you're expecting a non-stop hour and half of lusty busty high school girls whipping off their clothes, forget it. Except for a short topless scene, you won't find that here. The ads promise a whole lot more than this film delivers.

High school seniors. Horny teenage boys craving Virginal teenage girls. Prom Night. Rights of Passage and Bragging Rights. That's about it.

Except for Eugene Levy, there's barely a recognizable face in this entire film. Is that good? Bad? I don't know, but all leads, both male and female, are mostly interchangable. With their similar hairstyles and manner of dress, it's often hard to tell which one you're looking at anyway. At least this film eschews the cliche' of the High School Jock Bully and his Sadistic Henchmen [tm] and puts the guys pretty much on par with each other, socially and sexually.

Sad as it is to say, I found the most entertaining scene in this entire film a "forced him to drink laxative.. egads! Where's the toilet!" bit, and it was outdone tenfold by Jeff Daniels, in "Dumb and Dumber." If it's a super-charged romp you're looking for, cast this one aside and rent or watch "Animal House" instead. Sure, those are college kids, but the idea's the same, and the execution is superior in every way.

Devil in the Flesh (1998 Video)

Skip this one, see "The Crush" instead..

[2 June 2000]

If you saw and liked "The Crush" you'll find "Devil in the Flesh" to be a rather tepid teaser pretty much in the same mold, although not nearly as well-made or suspenseful, with a spate of carboard cutout characters.

This is one of those films that I'd throw under the "Sinful Pleasures" category.. you know it's junk, but for some reason you watch it anyway. Maybe there's nothing else worth watching on cable at the time, or you're fighting a bout of insomnia. Or maybe you're just hanging in there hoping Rose's ample breasts will finally fall out of one of her skimpy outfits.

Anyway, here's your standard, constantly re-hashed plot device of a teenage nympho with a tortured past who is deeply, seriously psychotic (except no one else around her seems to be able to notice), and she develops a crush on one of her handsome, friendly teachers. Once this happens (and the teacher doesn't seem to even notice it's happening until it's way way too late), it's curtains for anyone who tries to get in her way, including her own sadistic granny with whom she lives (but not for long), her high school girl rivals, social workers, cops, and especially the teacher's own girlfriend.

Again, another film where I ask myself "Who puts up the money to make stuff like this and why can't they spend it on something more useful and productive?" Well, I guess it keeps some B-movie actors and production crews from having to eat out of dumpsters.

You'll plod through an hour and a half of mayhem, waiting for Rose to get naked, but it never happens, although if it's skin you want, there's plenty of it including one way too artsy-fartsy love scene between the teacher and his true paramour. "Just lock the camera down, this isn't a rock video!" I found myself almost shouting at the screen.

Along the way you'll meet just about every filmic high school stereotype you've ever seen in 100 other films.. the sex-starved jock in his letterman's jacket (you just KNOW he's gonna be toast), the one-dimensional clueless cops, the gaggles of school girls who come to classes dressed in less fabric than you could cover a Barbie doll with, the school administrators who have _no_ idea there's a crazed psycho in their midst.. you name'em, they're all here, and waiting for Rose to line'em up and knock'em down one by one, in a myriad of sadistic graphic murder scenes. So what else is new?

Again, "The Crush" is a far better film that covers basically the same concept, but in a much more white knuckle, suspenseful way, without the gore and with better actors. This one is strictly late-night cable teevee fodder. About the kindest comment I can voice about it, is that it's not total garbage, just a time-waster.

Whatever (1998)

Don't waste your time..

[28 May 2000]

Whenever I see films like "Whatever" the thought that crosses my mind is.. why didn't the producers just donate all the money they wasted on making it to charities instead, where it could feed some hungry people, help out some homeless people, or.. whatever.

If I want to see packs of aimless, confused teenage girls "come of age" while trying to look and act ten years over their age as they try to figure out who they are, and what they want to be, I'll just visit the nearby shopping center when the high school next door lets out for the afternoon, where they travel in herds, hang out in front of Starbucks, chain smoking and trying to look cool and impress who.. each other? The teenage boys from the same school who all want to dress like gang members?

This movie simply goes nowhere. Suggestion to the producers and the director - next time, hire some real writers. Two thumbs down. More, if I had any more thumbs.