Mr Blue-4 Reviews

Leave the World Behind (2023)

Faux Sophistication = Tedium

[4/10 · 10 December 2023]

Another entry in the relatively new sub-genre of End Of The World films that are completely unconcerned with HOW the world ends, just how everyone behaves.

I am not familiar with the book the film is based on, but what exists here is not terribly concerned with any concrete examination in WHAT is really happening. It offers up a potpourri of apocalyptic memes (communications out, sonic attacks, failure of large transportation vehicles) along with a smorgasbord of possible conspiracy theories.

To any meaningful end? Hell no.

This is just to "examine" the reactions of the players involved, the middle class nuclear family that is renting the house of the wealthy black stockbroker who shows up, with his daughter, late on the first night they are there. Early wariness gives way to accommodation (from the father, Ethan Hawke) and high aggravation (from the mother, Julia Roberts). Mahershala Ali's stockbroker is accommodating while his daughter Myha'la is aggravated, though not as much as Roberts.

While the film is nicely shot and has one solid VFX sequence (the ship crashing into the beach), it starts wearing out its welcome as much as the 2 different parties do at the house. Things like mysterious groupings of deer appear, as well as other animals, leading one character to muse that "the animals are trying to tell us something." Ali hints at a very famous and powerful client that may have been throwing hints to him about something like this happening.

There is no clarification or explanation, because the film is clearly disinterested in it. It's only interested in "reactions." That's lazy and tiresome, but the hints at a sophisticated message actually being delivered is worst of all. There isn't one, unless you want treat urban professor Ethan Hawke's cry that without his cell phone and GPS he's a "useless man" as profound. It isn't, but watch the 2nd rate essays jump off on that one.

This is neither fish nor fowl: it's not a piece of entertainment wondering "what if", and it's not a meaningful examination into anything.

Aftersun (II) (2022)

Simply Not Enough There

[4/10 · 8 July 2023]

I was so turned off by watching this highly praised film I felt compelled to write a review of it.

First off, I'm giving it a relatively high score because it succeeds in capturing the naturalistic state that it desperately seeks. You believe these two are father and daughter, that they are on vacation in Turkey in the late '90s (the presumed time the film takes place), and that you are watching life as it's lived. The other British tourists all feel real, and the little girl absolutely feels like a normal 11 year old girl. That's worth something.

But not everything. And it's all undercut by oblique photography (uninteresting) and flash-forwards to the present day, many of which are captured in a strobe effect (highly annoying).

"Aftersun" is very much of the school that pushes back on exposition and any sense of narrative, thinking that mere observation is "more revealing" and moments of silence, coupled with scenes where the dialogue is just banter, are more "truthful."

However, truly great films exist in a space between telling you everything and telling you nothing. And this one drops hints about the circumstances beyond what we are seeing and the little we are told. But we are left with too little to satisfactorily fill in the blanks.

The filmmaker says that they are recreating their memories of a holiday with their father, and that's all well and good. However, we don't know her and aren't privy to the complete story of her and her father, so we are just left with a re-telling of events, minus any meaningful context.

And spoiler time: I find the subject of mental depression incredibly uninteresting. Therefore, I had no emotional connection to this film. I'm a little surprised that others here have, but many of them remark that it moved them precisely because of the documentation of the father's depression. Besides my bias against the subject, if your film only really works with people that have experience with a specific condition, that's a serious flaw.

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974)

Incomprehensible Mess

[3/10 · 10 February 2011]

I was in grade school when this came out, and I remembered it as a crime/caper film. It later became known as Michael Cimino's directorial debut. Of course, his next film would be "The Deer Hunter" (one that I am not a fan of). Watching this movie in 2011, it's clear why his career floundered after "The Deer Hunter." Here is a movie with no sense of story or even character. We move from scene to scene and the film's ongoing motivation seems to be to stage something that looks "neat".

"Thunderbolt" never recovers from its opening sequence. Clint Eastwood is seen as the preacher of a small Idaho church. Jeff Bridges, at the same time, is a leather pants-wearing huckster that makes off with a used car. The character we later learn to be Dunlap enters Eastwood's church and shoots at him in the middle of a sermon. Clint runs off into the field behind the church and is picked up by Bridges in the stolen used car, who runs over Dunlap for good measure. And just like that, Bridges and Eastwood are a team.

This may be good enough for some people, who are quick to label the merely absurd as "poetic", but try another adjective: nonsense. From the get-go "Thunderbolt" lets us know that it really has no interest in being coherent or grounded in some kind of reality where people behave with any reason. Let's just make a movie where "neat" stuff happens, irregardless of what's happened 10 minutes before or after.

Case in point- later on, Clint and Jeff are hitchhiking. They are picked up by a guy who appears to be drunk and has a raccoon in his front seat. As soon as they are in the car he proceeds to drive all over the road until they nearly crash. Upon getting out of the car, and decking the driver, the duo finds the trunk of the car full of rabbits. The whole sequence stands apart from the movie, adding neither humor or insight. But I guess it seemed "cool" to Cimino and company.

BTW, save the "70s filmmaking sensibility" arguments. As if every complaint about incoherent storytelling (which this is) is coming from someone too programmed by super-obvious narratives like old TV shows to "appreciate" something that is "diffent". Er, try again. I'm not expecting "Hawaii Five O", and there are plenty of 70s films that hold up by simply adhering to basic conventions of movie-making while still being "different" (i.e. "The Last Detail").

Kudos to the photography, which is also aided by stunning locations (perhaps inspiring Cimino to return to the area for "Heaven's Gate" later). However, while this is certainly a "guy's film", did it have to be so incredibly sexist? If a woman appears in the film and she's under 25, she's probably in the shortest skirt possible, and/or flaunting cleavage. Not that some women don't dress this way some of the time, but all of them? And it's hard to imagine a more gratuitous nude shot than the one of the suburban wife who merely stands completely naked in her window for Bridges to see. Other than solidify the R rating and give a few guys in pre-cable/video 1974 a thrill, what's the point of that?

The House Bunny (2008)

One Of The Worst Things Ever Put On Film

[1/10 · 14 February 2009]

Nothing is worse than bad comedy (ok, maybe bad 5 hour long movies:comedies are usually short). And from the absolute bottom of the heap comes "The House Bunny".

Where to begin? Entire film's sensibility geared to 12-14 year old boys and girls (despite college setting)? Check. Fascination with gross bodily functions? Check. One dimensional characters? Check. Women portrayed as either sexpots, bitches, or sexless? Check. Incessant intrusion of songs to help make "hit" soundtrack? Check. Sappy sentimental moments as everyone "learns what is really important"? Check. Laugh-free from first moment to last? Check.

Run-of-the-mill bad movies are a given, like death and taxes. "The House Bunny" is in a whole other class, one where you can't believe anyone in front of or behind the camera wasn't aware of just how truly awful a film they were producing. If this comes your way, run!

The Darjeeling Limited (2007)

Wes Anderson's Worst

[2/10 · 29 July 2008]

I am honestly baffled how Wes Anderson occupies such a rarefied position in American film. He has made interesting looking films, some bursting with ideas, but has yet to deliver a truly great film, from first minute to last (and yeah, I've seen all of his films and not one of them works completely).

As I watched "The Darjeeling Limited" I was stupefied. Scene after scene, we are treated to the most stilted and artificial dialog. There is no progression in this film, pretty amazing for a road movie. Only with the funeral of the young boy does the film touch anything close to recognizable human behavior.

By that time I had my fill of these three brothers, and I have to say not for a minute- not for a SECOND- did I buy that these were flesh and blood human characters. There's not a frame where you're not aware that you're watching three actors in a very precious movie- and I like these actors. And the pretensions of the "Play With Fire" scene are insufferable.

Also there is nothing in the film that can be even considered remotely funny.

At this point I have to nip all these people who have been snookered by this movie in the bud. The most tiresome thing I read here is how clearly this movie isn't for everyone because it's so sophisticated, so "droll" (um, no), and not "obvious." With the clear implication that those of us completely unmoved by "The D. Limited" simply can't appreciate some of the finer things, and we must be simply conditioned to respond to "obvious" commercial film-making.

Try again. I like and on occasion read "The New Yorker." I hate Jim Carrey movies and most of what passes for comedy out of Hollywood. And this is just as bad, just in an entirely different way.

Tideland (2005)

Perhaps Gilliam's Best

[9/10 · 29 February 2008]

Terry Gilliam's best film since "Muchaussen" and "Fear and Loathing". Suffice to say, you've never seen a movie like this before, though it will make you think of films as diverse as "Psycho", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Days of Heaven", and "King of the Hill".

The shame of it is that I'm a little stumped trying to think of people who will "get" this film. Besides it's whirly-bird nature that will surely throw off anyone whose idea of a good time at the movies is "Cheaper By The Dozen", I'm afraid 90% of the people out there will never get past the subject matter. Even people who love offbeat, intellectually stimulating film-making may well opt out when you get to see what happens to Jeff Bridges' character.

Terry Gilliam explains his work concisely on the DVD: the film is really about innocence in the face of terrible events. Terry himself concedes that too much of the audience can not watch the scenes with Jeliza Rose and Dickens without thinking of the sexual overtones, though that is not the intent of those scenes.

His intro to the DVD is also helpful in explaining that the film should be viewed just as the world is in the movie: through the eyes of an innocent 9 year old child. If you can see your way to that, then "Tideland" should work its magic on you.

And the performance by Jodelle Ferland is one of the best you will ever see by a child performer.

Shopgirl (2005)

Worth Buying

[10/10 · 15 November 2005]

Perhaps the best film of the year, "Shopgirl" makes the sale. Most people might find this too small a story, but what it lacks in scale it makes up for in intimacy.

This is the film that people mistakenly thought "Lost in Translation" was, but isn't. Like George Clooney in "Good Night and Good Luck", Steve Martin has crafted a wonderful little movie, and then given the best part of it to someone else. In this case that would be Clare Danes. Mirabelle, the lonely Saks sales clerk, is a role that any actress would crave. And quite a few could have done well with it too.

But Clare owns this role so throughly that after seeing "Shopgirl" it's hard to imagine anyone else in the movie. She and the filmmakers understand that the movie is best told just showing her, silently reacting to what's happening, or simply walking down the street.

"Shopgirl" also manages to effectively capture "real" L.A., with its dowdy apartments and worn down cars, while spinning a lush and romantic mood. The score pushes it at times, but the photography is wonderful (I find the comments here knocking the film's look incredulous and suspect:I suppose kitchen-sink realism would have worked better?). A nod too to Steve Martin for crafting and playing a role that, in the end, does not endear him to us.

Kelly's Heroes (1970)

One Of The Best

[9/10 · 5 September 2005]

I've grown up with this film, thanks to all the times CBS used to run it, and cable channels since then. I never tire of it. A near perfect combination of action and comedy. The film's wisecracking is not only appropriate to the subject matter but to the environment the film found itself made and released in (the height of the Vietnam War).

The turmoil of the Vietnam era casts a shadow on the film, yet at the same time it stands on its own, very much timeless in a way. The one exception being Donald Sutherland's Oddball character, who remains one of the best things about this 1945-era film while his presence screams Woodstock.

Watching it today, it points out a tremendous flaw in TODAY's Hollywood. The casting. "Kelly's Heroes" is rich with character actors, who are not only able in firing off lines at each other (Rickles and Savalas particularly) but also in holding the screen in saying nothing. I think every fan of the film knows exactly what I mean and would agree with me that the mentality guiding the production of films today is simply horrific.

After Hours (I) (1985)

Still Great After All These Years

[10/10 · 17 September 2004]

I saw this when this first came out about 19 (!) years ago, and it became my favorite movie of 1985, and probably my favorite Scorsese film ("Goodfellas" is right there with it). However it always seemed that I was the only one who felt that way. It was no sensation at the box office (even by art film standards), it was ignored by all the awards as far as I remember, and no DVD release.

Until now. First off, I am happy to report that the new DVD release looks and sounds great. It feels like the film came out last year.

Now, years down the road, you really appreciate how accomplished "After Hours" is in the wake of 100s of inferior indie releases that ape the urban paranoia and "downtown" sensibility that this seems to effortlessly catch. The film is pitch perfect:you sense a filmmaker in complete command, but the film is always off balance (as intended). The plot seems to flow randomly and the movie always defies your expectations, yet it's as tightly assembled as a jigsaw puzzle.

It's easy to catch the Scorsese style of shooting and editing, really starting to roll here (before taking off in "The Color of Money" and "Goodfellas"), as the engine of the movie. You have to remind yourself that every other director was not trying to make movies this way at this point (1985), and that you are watching the inventor, not just the best practitioner.

But don't overlook the cast's contributions. Perfectly cast down to the smallest roles (yes, I mean you Dick Miller), few things are more enjoyable than watching an able cast take the ball and run with it. Obviously having a blast, they not only jump into their parts, but they have no hesitation at being unlikable and annoying. Particularly Griffin Dunne, the perfect Everyman, who becomes more and more of a jerk as the night wears on.

Northfork (2003)

Fantastic Looking, but not Fantastic

[3/10 · 23 March 2004]

This is one of the best looking films of the past few years. The fact that it was done on a virtual shoestring ($1.8 million or so they say on the DVD:they infer that they ended up with even less financing) makes it all the more impressive. Not simply the photography, but the design and particularly the locations (Eastern Montana) which are at once authentically American and otherworldly.

Too bad there isn't a coherent movie to go with it. An extremely promising setup of the last 48 hours of clearing out a rural town in 1955 before it will be flooded for a dam is washed away with pretentious mumbo jumbo alluding to angels and a dying child. And what is presented as the "real world" is hopelessly arch. Note to the Polish Brothers:the Coen Brothers are funny-you are not.

No doubt many cineastes will find "Northfork"'s abundant symbolism and inscrutability as marks of some sort of profundity, the sort that sophisticated types wrestle the night away with in coffeehouses while the braindead masses watch "Charlie's Angels" or something. (Sigh) If you insist....

In the meantime, recommended only as a case study for filmmakers for its' impeccable technical credits and photographic beauty.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Better Than Reloaded, But...

[5/10 · 11 November 2003]

So what we have is one outstanding first film, one throughly muddled second film, and a third that falls inbetween the two. (Spoilers follow)

What "Revolutions" has that is worth praising is...a tremendously ambitious and well done battle sequence (the defense of the city of Zion)...a bare minimum of the vague mumbo jumbo that weighed down "Reloaded"....Nona Gaye (in the role Aliyiah was to have)...seeing the City of Machines...and the final battle between Neo and Agent Smith (the opening of this in particular).

However, all is not right in the Matrix. First off, we spend most of the first half hour dealing with "the Trainman", Neo at this strange train station he can't escape, and a "family" of computer programs, and all for...what exactly? Most of the first hour or so has almost no bearing on what follows.

The nonstop action after that held my interest, sure. But Trinity's last scene was too long (do you really want your audience saying "get on with it" at this point?). And the Wachowski Brothers fall for that terrible Hollywood habit of having crowds cheering at the end of their film (a la the team winning the big game kind of moment).

Which leads me to ask this. Was anyone else struck by the fact that, at the end, we're basically back to square one? That is, the "war" may be over, but that still leaves most of humanity plugged into The Matrix, still like the battery Morpheus holds up in the first film. This is a happy ending?

Lost in Translation (2003)

This Movie Is Lost Alright

[4/10 · 30 October 2003]

Full disclosure:I thought both "The Virgin Suicides" and Sophia Coppola's short film "Lick the Star" were a whole lot of nothing. I'm a fan of narrative filmmaking, something that Sophia herself has fessed up to not being terribly interested in. On the other hand, I had higher hopes for this film, mostly because I had just gone to Japan (and Tokyo) for the first time this year, and I really like both Bill Murray and Scarlet Johansson.

Alas, Sophia failed to deliver, yet again. "Lost in Translation" is a mostly dreary exercise. I would say it's just a bunch of scenes, one following the other to no discernable point, except even the "scenes" themselves are mostly empty.

Please spare the prose defining how Bill and Scarlett are each "lost" while fiddling around in one very swanky hotel. I would rather say that both are, unfortunately, playing shallow characters from which we never gleam any inner life over the film's running time. They're bored because they're boring.

Not only do Murray and Johansson play fairly drab characters, they manage to spend their time with possibly the least interesting people in Tokyo, with Coppola pal "Charlie Brown" leading the way. Unless you're taken in by that nexus of downtown bohemia and jet set glam slumming through the night as only people without day jobs can, they might as well as been in a foreign-language Omaha for all they get out of Japan.

And the shame of it is Bill Murray deserves a vehicle like this, one for him to reveal his improv talents and that deep streak of melancholy he has that has only grown with age. His maturity is reflected in that he relies less and less on shtick now:he knows how to hold an audience with the smallest behaviors and reactions. We get a demonstration of this here, but to no end.

Which leads me to ask those here singing "Lost"'s praises:what's the matter with you people? Am I one of the few to see and admit that the emperor has no clothes?

There seems to be this sense of satisfaction here, that a) if you "get" this film it is because you are operating on a higher plane and b) if you don't, why, you're just too conditioned to "commercial" moviemaking and your senses too dulled by American bombast to "appreciate" the quiet and sensitivity that Coppola has instilled her film with.

As a card-carrying fan of Taratino/Oliver Stone school of filmmaking, let me say "baloney." Let me only point to Clint Eastwood's "Mystic River" which manages to provides strong characters, a definitive sense of place, and plenty of quiet time with its actors all the while servicing a compelling narrative.

However, I do also enjoy the small character studies that "Lost in Translation" aspires to be. However, in this case, we never learn anything more about Murray's movie star or Johansson's young wife from about 10 minutes into the movie up until the end. All we do is observe them in the strictest sense, but we never really "see" anything.

None of the dialouge provides any further insight into these people. In the films that I like, the people in them express themselves in such a way that we learn more about them as we go. In one scene Bill tells his wife on the phone he wants to get healthier. The next scene he orders beer with his lunch. There's an illusion of an connection between the two:you'd get a hernia trying to make a real one.

My advice is to see the works of Eric Rohmer, who knows how to do this stuff right.

American Job (1996)

Whole Lot of Nothing

[4/10 · 8 March 2002]

I enjoyed "American Movie", so I rented Chris Smith's first film, which I thought was a documentary too. In the first minute I saw that it wasn't, but I gave it a go.

What a dead end film. Being true-to-life hardly serves you if you're merely going to examine tediousness, esp. tediousness that we're already familar with.

I'm sorry, but will it come as a relevation to ANYONE that 1) a lot of jobs suck and 2) most of them are crappy, minimum wage jobs in the service sector??? I knew that before I saw the film. It didn't really provide an examination of that anyway, as while the film struggles to feel "real" (handheld camera, no music, etc.), what's going on hardly plays out as it would in the "real world."

Would an employer be so cheerful to Randy when he picks up his check, after Randy quit on him after 3 days when the guy said he expected him to stay 6 months?? Or the day after abandoning his job (and screwing up the machine he was working on), that everyone would be so easy on him??

A big problem is our "hero"(?), Randy. This guy is a loser. Not because he's stuck in these jobs, or has a crummy apartment, or looks like one. He's a dope. He doesn't pay attention or even really try at these jobs. He has zero personalty. If I had to hire someone, he wouldn't make it past the interview.

I'm looking forward to what Chris Smith does next, but guys, knock off the "this-is-an-important-film" stuff. "American Job" doesn't work.

Quintet (1979)

Stinks On Ice

[3/10 · 5 March 2002]

In a up and down career with all sorts of movies, this is Altman's one try at science fiction, and it clearly shows that it's not his forte.

The film is practically incomprehensible. It seems a disastrous combination of experimental theater pretentiousness and a major studio trying to jump on the post-Star Wars bandwagon (not that this film is at all modeled after that one, but you can imagine that the studio signed on hoping for a much different Paul Newman sci-fi film). The story is nonexistent, and the characters remain strangers to us all the way through.

Altman has packs of dogs feeding on dead bodies throughout the movie, obviously straining to make some sort of POINT. But since the movie is so poorly thought out, starting with the lack of plot on up, it really isn't about anything at all.

The production design is confused, the photography is undone by the blurs on the edges, and the score is terrible. However, "Quintet" does have one redeeming feature. Not only is the movie clearly filmed out in the snow and ice, but the interiors are kept cold as well. You see the actors' breath in every scene. You really FEEL the cold.

The Other (1972)

Still Creepy After All These Years

[8/10 · 28 November 2001]

Like a lot of people here, I grew up with this movie. I believe that CBS started showing it in prime time as early as 1973. In any advent, they showed it a lot through the 70's, and I think I saw it every time. A lot of it made a huge impression on me as a kid:"Holland" performing the magic trick for his elderly neighbor, the kid jumping in the barn on the pitchfork (and the next cut is his casket being taken away), the circus freak show..... Most of all, director Robert Mulligan and company make the most benign setting (rural 1930s America) a scary place.

I just watched this again on AMC last night, and it holds up pretty well. Most people should see the twist coming, and the feel is distinctly early 70's California (in geography and look). However, this is miles above all those Exorcist ripoffs and 80's slasher films. See it!

Bruiser (2000)

Terrible!

[3/10 · 27 October 2001]

Romero has been on the downward slope since "Creepshow." With this one he just sails off the cliff. This certainly isn't frightening or suspenseful. And it doesn't make any relevant social points that it is so desperately trying to. Peter Stromyre's performance is legendary in its badness. Romero has to seriously rethink what he's trying to do, because this is an indication of a writer/director completely lost.

Magnolia (1999)

Reach Exceeding Grasp

[9/10 · 11 December 1999]

Boy, I was hoping for great things from this film. And I got them. However, it was a bunch of great things, as opposed to a great whole movie.

This movie is ambitous. REALLY ambitous. It attempts more in one of its storylines than most movies. So it feels a bit churlish to nitpick. However, I feel this:"Boogie Nights" was a smaller film with greater focus. "Magnolia" is larger with higher highs, but less overall success.

The film never tops the first 20 minutes, probably the best single piece of filmmaking this year. After an introduction to three urban legends, "Magnolia" introduces itself. Basically this a crazy quilt of characters that all happen to be in the San Fernando Valley on one day. There are connections between them, though they all won't be connected in the end.

The cast meets their challenges head on. Philip Baker Hall is always good with P.T. Anderson, and here he does some great stuff. So does Jason Robards, John C. Reilly, Julliane Moore, William H. Macy, and the quiz show kid (sorry, missed the name). Tom Cruise? Some of his best acting. An (expected) Oscar nomination would not be out of place.

The photography is very varied, and some shots are just outstanding. Aimee Mann has been underappreciated as a songwriter:this film should change that, I hope.

My pet peeve is that in taking on so much, "Magnolia" has trouble delivering at the same level for everyone all through the whole film. Some stories become captivating, then lose steam. Some scenes are perplexing. Some characters become awfully hard to take. Other parts carry on too long (no small thing in a long movie). The end result, for me, is neither "perfect" or "masterpiece." Just damn good.

DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE:I have to say the sequence 2/3rds of the way into the movie where everyone starts singing the Aimee Mann song is genius. And the raining frogs are fantastic-best special effect of the year!

The Green Mile (1999)

It Works

[9/10 · 11 December 1999]

I'm as big a fan of "The Shawshank Redemption" as you'll find. So, as I did with "Shawshank", I saw this on opening day. I have to admit I was a little worried about the 3 hour plus running time. But let me say this was never boring, and never really felt too long (except for a few scenes). Honestly, it sailed much more than the other 3 hour film I saw today, "Magnolia."

The reason for the length is the dedication to the book. Almost nothing has been left out. The only major changes were made to the present day material, which bookends the film here. It takes about 2 hours and 50 minutes to tell this story. I'd say it could have been trimmed by maybe 10 minutes. Some members of the audience were restless, but they appeared to me to be guys better off watching "Armageddon", so the hell with them.

On the plus side:the cast. It's one of the year's best. A bunch of great character actors, old and young. And Hanks does give one of his best performances. The Duncan guy playing John Coffey is dead-on:it's as if the book was written with him in mind. The production design is top notch.

On the minus side:I would have rather seen Roger Deakins back. The photography is good, just not as crisp as "Shawshank." Thomas Newman's score is good, but a little "Shawshank" redux. The closing segment underlines what we already know, or feel. The old Paul Edgecomb didn't have to spell everything out.

One thing:the LA Times critic here (the same guy who dissed "Titantic") threw a hissy fit over Del's execution scene. The way he described it, you would think it was a Fangoria Splatterfest. I found the scene tastefully done (in the context of what happens in the book) and honest-to-gosh restrained. But that's my two cents.

Doom Asylum (1987)

A Nightmare From Hell

[1/10 · 3 November 1999]

There might be a worse movie out there than this one, but I wouldn't want to see it. This is bad enough. Completely unfunny, and needless to say unscary, horror spoof of slasher films. The longest 90 minutes since "Pink Flamingos". BTW, the film is padded with 10 minute sections of the creature watching TV-public domain stuff, of course. The worst!

Zontar: The Thing from Venus (1967 TV Movie)

This Might Be the Worst Movie Ever Made

[1/10 · 31 October 1999]

This opus gives any Ed Wood film a run for its money as "worst film ever." Except while there yuks to be had watching this scifi mishmash, it lacks the one-of-a-kind delirium that Wood brought to his work. One thing I remember most about this is that it's another film where when the "army" is called in, all we ever see is five guys.

Airspeed (1999)

Moves, but not Moving

[4/10 · 29 September 1999]

A Canadian (check the funny accents, eh) family action film that aspires to be a Cameron-esque drama headed by a teenage girl. She is the one conscious person aboard a private jet struck by lightning. Air traffic controllers on the ground and some military types in the air try to help her, first, get off the plane, then land it when she's stuck on it.

I don't have it in for this film as the previous posters. But I gotta say the staging of how this girl manages to be the only person on the plane to survive the lightning strike is, well, not good. Things get off to a rather shaky start to get the piece setup. After that, things move along, although a little less propelled by actual drama than a step by step chronicle of attempted solutions and subsequent problems.

Of course, a built in problem with this, esp. a family film, is that we never doubt the girl is going to be okay. Not that with any other conventional film we wouldn't expect something like that, but even with a "Airport '75", you know Charlton Heston is going to make it to the end of the film, but you're not sure he'll make it alive. So if this is going to work for you at all, you must be content going in that you absolutely know where it'll end:you're just along for the ride.

The young girl is adequate. Joe Mantenga seems to be acting while holding his mortgage payment in his hands. No one makes a strong impression, for good or ill, except one of the supporting players whose accent screams "North of the Border."

Body Double (1984)

Still Great, Though Embarrassing

[9/10 · 29 September 1999]

OK, I saw this opening day, knowing it had been slammed in the NY Times. Still, I loved it as pure moviemaking. The camera work, all the information conveyed JUST visually. The twists and turns of the story. And the fantastic music (still not available as a complete soundtrack, thank you).

Look, I can knock this too. Craig Wasson is no leading man-have the last 15 years proved me wrong? The lady who gets murdered (I forget her name) doesn't even give a performance, she just shows up. The very worst aspects of DePalma's misogyny are thrown in your face. And a porn movie with a 100 extras and giant sets-what's up with that?

Still, just as pure cinematic storytelling, this soars above all that, I think. I wish Brian liked women and was only allowed to work with great scripts. But I still adore his moviemaking chops here, warts and all. And kudos to Dennis Franz, way back when!