hiproductions Reviews

Saturday Night Fever (1977)

Missing the third act

[6/10 · 16 March 2024]

It's been 20 years since my last movie review but after watching Saturday Night Fever for the third time I thought I should come back from the dead and write my observations.

Firstly, although I've seen this movie two times before, I could never really remember the plot line. I could only recall that I mildly liked the film but I couldn't tell you what happened.

Now after my third watch I see why this has been the case. First of all, the movie starts out like a breaking away film with the Travolta character wanting somethIng better than a paint shop job. In act 1 his potential new opportunity arises with a dance contest for money and recognition at his favourite disco tech and the perfect dance partner to pursue to help him get it.

In act 2 He would then meet several obstacles like a clingy girlfriend, aloof parents, demanding boss, scumbag loser friends. You know, the obstacles we all face in life at some point. The problem is, the movie ends with all obstacles fully in tact and the audience wondering what the crap just happened? He wins the dance contest but felt unworthy of it and gives it to the 2nd place winner in a fit. Making the last 2 hours of our viewing lives a complete waste.

In act 3 - which is virtually non existent, He doesn't break away, he shakes a girl's hand as a "friend". Something which was never indicated as a goal at any time. But WHAMMY he accomplished it anyways. End of movie.

This is why I could never remember what happened, because nothing ever did happen in this flick.

I was 10 years old when this hit the theatres and I remember distinctly how impacting it was on pop culture. At age 11, I finally saved up enough money for a pair of tan Angel's flight complete with a hand me down silk shirt. I also remember not getting any babes whatsoever as I didn't look at all like Vinny Barbareno...and I was 11...and I couldn't skate backwards. All dealbreakers.

I thought Travolta did a great job in this movie - phenomenal dancer - moves which have been so parodied over the years that they are now cartoonish today but at the time - he legit had on his boogie shoes. He just had a broken story to work with. I give it 6 out of 10 stars as the soundtrack is timeless, the acting was great - even by the random Coppola paint store owner appearance! It was good, enjoyable to watch as a memory lane piece with no regard for political correctness ideology.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)

Awful Acting - Poor Direction

[1/10 · 24 July 2020]

How is this 7.7 stars!? Everyone was simply reading memorised lines the whole time! What was the plot supposed to be? Was I supposed to follow something? If I would have seen this in the theatre I would have walked out - awful awful directing of really good actors. I don't recommend anyone waste their time on this ridiculous shark-jumping sequel.

Uncut Gems (2019)

No Plotline No Character Arc No Sense No Use

[2/10 · 24 July 2020]

I am now convinced that the IMDB rating system is going the way of Amazon where the ratings are being "stuffed" to boost sales...This movie is pure crap. I loved that Adam Sandler attempted a new character however, this film made him nothing more than a screaming Jewish hipster for 2.5 hours. He had zero character arc - he never got better or worse or developed or anything - just a screaming Jewish hipster and it got old. Really, it's the fault of the scriptwriter and Directors - this was just a zero of a story with no plotline whatsover so how is the Howard Ratner character ever going to experience anything worth following? There was nothing to root for - nothing funny, Nothing dramatic. There was no goal to achieve or action to accomplish. Just a bunch of bit parts for Kevin Garnett and "The Weekend" to show up and win a couple 10 star reviews from kids who have no idea how awful this movie is. Garnett did surprise me with his performance. I thought he played himself very well - it's just a shame he was trapped in this abortion of a movie that is so bad that I will be pissed off for weeks after wasting my time in watching it!

Jimi: All Is by My Side (2013)

Director Burns Boiled Water: A Ridiculous Sewer Drop Into Nonsense

[1/10 · 9 May 2015]

I watched and watched and watched and watched...and realized that none of the "traumatic" set ups that Ridley put in place were ever going to paid off...not EVER. I knew something was wrong when 2/3s into the movie the Jimi Hendrix character never sang. not once. I am aware that Hendrix had a reticence about singing but began to get over it very early in his career. Not according to THIS dungheap of a movie, according to "All is By My Side" Hendrix was still beedly beedly beedly on his guitar only and everyone was gobsmacked for it and nothing else LONG into his stay in London. This is horrible. I surmised that Ridley didn't get permission to use the actual Hendrix songs and didn't have an actor that could actually sing anything at all (became apparent toward the end with the Sgt Pepper's murdering of Hendrix version of the Beatles version. version) What a catastrophic waste of time to lure fans into a rock biopic without first getting any permission to play, perform, provide renditions for the ACTUAL ROCK PERFORMER!

The second major deflation of this maggot excrement film is the ridiculous confusing attempt at plot lines over and over and over. All failed a perfect 0-20 times! Screwing up the most fascinating life story of the greatest guitarist in Rock history is like taking on the role of "Master Chef" at a gourmet restaurant and then finding a way to screw up boiling water. It would seem impossible, but Ridley found a way. No measurable progression of a blues guitarist slowly coming into his own as a rock blues demi god and slowly destroying himself with drugs: LSD, cocaine, heroine. Nope - there is a MAJOR setup for his introduction to LSD in the beginning and I thought, "OK here we go" and then an hour later - no pay off nothing. It was almost as if Ridley wanted to portray Hendrix as a Mormon who never did drugs at all! The great stories behind Purple Haze (Hendrix most popular song) is never even mention, NOR IS PURPLE HAZE!!!! How can you have a Jimi Hendrix Biopic without mentioning Purple Haze!!?!? You can't and that is why this isn't a biopic its a Suckopic and should never be viewed by anyone except the Director - while in Hell over and over and over (which would be hell in and of itself I think).

And there are set ups with the former drummer of the Animals - (who provided the unique sound and feelof "Manic Depression") but we never learned who the frack this guy is or was and there is no mention whatsoever of "Manic Depression" or the fact that the drummer was formerly of the Animals. Horrible horrible horrible movie. And now the creme de la creme or "burnt boiling water" in Director Ridley's case, Jimi Hendrix was involved for a short time with Janis Joplin who died of a drug overdose and then Jimi himself died of drug overdose. Not according to Burnt Water Ridley - there was no mention of a Joplin friendship and NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO HENDRIX DEATH BY OVERDOSE! How!? How!? How do you burn boiling water Ridley!? Easy, he was lazy and cheap and didn't secure the rights to tell the story as it happened. He tried to retell it in a crappy way that ruined it. SO annoyed that I had to waste my time on this terrible attempt at film makery. Don't bother renting or streaming this stupid film fakery - just watch it on youtube - it has the same quality as a youtube maker's movie.

Super Size Me (2004)

Sobering Expose for Fatties Everywhere

[8/10 · 13 May 2006]

This was an unbelievable documentary. My eyes were totally opened to the garbage that I've been accepting as 'food'. Like any documentary, its not fact but rather an informative 'editorial'. This film takes you inside the ugly side of one of the fast food giants 'McDonalds' and gives us a glimpse first-hand of the negative effects of processed fast food. I love fast food and used to love McDonalds before I saw this, now I stay away from it at any cost. Yeah, now I'm over to Wendy's which is FAR more healthier with their 'BIGGIE' Size (which actually preceded the 'super' size by the way). This is a great documentary to watch with a fatty like me, its a harmless way of letting them know to watch what they eat and how much they eat.

Andrew R. Hamilton, Hamilton International Productions, hiproductionsdotcom

Road to Perdition (2002)

Unbelievable cast and crew make this film a timeless piece.

[9/10 · 3 July 2005]

Mendes is turning out to be in the class of Peter Weir in that he bides his time and takes a script with depth, meaning, and weight. This is refreshing. His grasp of visual story telling is uniquely superb. Nothing is wasted and every element: writing, casting, set decor, acting, cinematography is integrated masterfully by Mendes (as it was in American Beauty). If you enjoy story 1st and have no patience for gratuitous gangland violence, then this is a film for you. Its gangland Chicago during the depression and the local mob boss Rooney (played by Paul Newman) has two sons: a surrogate son, Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and a natural born son, Conner(played beautifully by Daniel Craig). Connor inflicts atrocities (out of jealousy) on Sullivan, who is an ingenious hit man with supernatural excellence. Sullivan, driven by revenge, seeks to save his son Michael from the same "Road" that he has taken. The visual imagery was amazing. It takes a person to the era and Conrad Hall did such a great job of capturing Mendes' vision without lighting too much "on the nose". Editing was brilliant, this movie doesn't get slow, or needlessly 'cut around'. The editing is invisible and the pacing is perfect to the story. This is a DVD worth owning.

Wild About Harry (2000)

Gleeson is brilliant and overall a good plot

[5/10 · 6 June 2005]

This was a very good film. The humor is British which takes a bit of adjusting to but Gleeson's performance was perfect. He demonstrates that he can hold down a lead part while not necessarily fitting a Hollywood mold. The overall plot was good. The Gleeson character was a total jerk and as a result, he was surrounded by people that hated him thoroughly. Through a tragic injury, he has to start all over and has a very hard time figuring out why everyone around him is such a jerk to HIM, not realizing that he was living in a world of relationships that he built (or destroyed). From there, Harry has to start all over and work through the many difficulties/consequences of his previous life. Gleeson is brilliant, I really had to root for him the whole time. If this were available on DVD I would probably buy it.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Convoluted story, poor cinematography: Good performances

[4/10 · 3 June 2005]

To sound as flipfloppy as possible: I didn't love this movie but I didn't hate it either. The story was a bit convoluted. Why in the crap was Liam Neesan wandering in Europe? to find his son? why all of a sudden? And what did the Orlando Bloom character want? What did the princess/queen lady with the bad mascara job want? I couldn't make heads or tails of the plot. All I could figure out from this movie was what I brought with me to the theater: a basic knowledge of history. From that I surmised that they wanted to establish a "New World Order/U.N. Peacekeeping mission" for Jerusalem where everyone just 'gets along' etc. aside from the evil Christian vs. the 'sensitive' Muslim undertones, the story was not very compelling. As for the cinematography, God help us all. I can't believe this is the same guy that shot "Gladiator" I thought maybe everybody was dark half the time and focus was infinitely deep the other half of the time because of the format, then I discovered it was shot in super 35...no excuses there. I was constantly distracted from the convoluted story by poor cinematography. I just couldn't see the actors. Some of the opening shots looked like something from an early Sergio Leone western...which isn't a compliment. The one bright spot here are the performances by Bloom and Neesan. Both are excellent actors, Ridley Scott is an excellent director this should inevitably lead to quality performances. It was these performances that kept me in the theater and will probably cause me to rent the DVD to see if on a second viewing, I can pick up pieces I may have lost in the initial viewing.

The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989)

same moral dilemma as feminist cause: Do two wrongs make a right?

[3/10 · 27 May 2005]

Peter Greenaway presented his audience with the same moral dilemma that faces the feminist cause today: Do two wrongs make a right? This movie told the story of an brutally obnoxious restaurant owner named Albert Spica (Michael Gambon) who physically and verbally batters his wife Georgina, played by Helen Mirren, with seeming impunity. Cory the cook (Ciaran Hinds), himself a victim of Spica's verbal abuse, has passively stood by to witness Albert's atrocities day in and day out. His apathetic demeanor is finally jarred when Georgina meets a quiet patron named Michael (Alan Howard) and begins to have a torrid love affair directly "under the nose" of her husband. Cory takes subversive action against his tyrannical employer by assisting their new relationship. He provides them with a safe place for their lovemaking and warning them of Albert's approach. The plan meets with complete disaster as the two lovers are found out by Albert who, being a violent man, vows to kill and "eat" Michael when he finds him. He eventually did find Michael and did kill him at which point Georgina, once again, seeks the aid of Cory to help her rectify her situation. She asks him to cook Michael and put Albert in a position to eat him. Cory, the cooks, and waiters carry Michael's cooked corpse to Albert's table and subsequently subdue and disarm his henchmen, leaving him utterly defenseless. Georgina carries out her solution to his murderous and misogynous violence by putting a bullet in his skull at the end of the picture.

Early in the film, both Mr. Spica and Georgina epitomize everything that feminism stands against. Albert is the man's man that is the king of all he sees. He rules with a testosterone fist and flaunts his powers at the slightest provocation. He is the prototypical Rush Limbaugh with a bad beard. His exploitation of women is obvious throughout the picture in his dealings with his wife and when he brings "showgirls" (a real-life exploitation) into the restaurant. During the entire movie he does not change and it is evident from the start that he is incapable of change.

Cory, the other character mired in inertia, bears an uncanny resemblance to men (and women) of today who are indifferent to the blatant oppression of women. Albert's favorite place to carry out his beating crimes was right under the nose of Cory who sees the madness but takes no measures to stop it. He did demonstrate a good heart by cleaning up the person covered in dog droppings, but exhibited a faint heart when he failed to confront Albert regarding his treacherous behavior. Cory's apathetic disposition could be defined as outright cowardly. He has much to lose in a confrontation with his boss. His livelihood, reputation, and even his health are at stake with a person like Albert. Often times, people in reality see evils carried out against women and do virtually nothing to stop it, such as in the case of the United States' decision to expand trade relations with communist China despite their policy of forced abortion of girls. Another example is a male dominated Congress turning a blind eye to the senseless rape and mutilation of women currently taking place in Africa. Also, the numerous sexploitation films of Hollywood, sex clubs, and strip joints all aimed at demeaning and demoralizing women, are not only tolerated here at home but, much like Mr. Spica, we encourage them.

As the movie progresses, Georgina begins to take part in a well-deserved rebellion against Albert when she meets with a stranger (Michael) in the bathroom of her husband's restaurant. She begins to explore and assert her womanhood by enjoying passionate encounters with the man of her choosing. Michael was the sort of character that the feminism cause desperately requires. He is an enabler and active participator willing to risk life and limb in order to provide an avenue of escape for a woman trapped in a loathsome, terrifying situation. He is fearless in the face of Albert's brutality and, though his actions are carried out underground, he remains firm in his conviction to help her even when called over to the Spica's table. Here, Georgina reveals that she has had two miscarriages and is in need of a good Gynecologist. It was an appropriate response for Michael to say he was a gynecologist (even though he really wasn't) because a gynecologist is a doctor whose specialization is specifically to heal women.

The finale was the most troubling area of the film. It brought to light an ancient moral dilemma for the audience: Do two wrongs make a right? It was clear that Georgina was acting on Cory's words hen she decided to have her liberator cooked. She simply wanted to say to death, "I eat you". However, her barbaric method of revenge on her husband via forced cannibalism and, ultimately, murder by a bullet to the head was something that a Neandertholic Albert would do, not something we would expect or hope to expect from a newly liberated woman like Georgina. Do two wrongs make a right? Greenaway, and some quick-tempered sects of feminism might say "yes" but the peaceful, bloodless, and respectable victories won by women in the suffrage movement would emphatically answer "no".

Singin' in the Rain (1952)

best film musical of all time?! I don't think so G.

[2/10 · 27 May 2005]

I watched this film with the expectation that it would have a good storyline that would keep my interest like Oliver, My Fair Lady, or at least Mary Poppins. I was sorely disappointed. This film has been called "the best" film musical of all time. I do not share that opinion.

The characters were campy. Gene Kelly was far too happy all the time and it made it very difficult for me to watch him. The dumb blonde played by Jean Hagen was an exception. I found her to be very funny (apparently so did Frank Loesser in that he plagiarized her character in his musical "How to Succeed at Business Without Really Trying".) The supporting cast was fair and Debbie Reynolds was competent but I really see no reason to rave about this musical.

I would take Fred Astaire over Gene Kelly any day for choreography. The story is rudely and abruptly interrupted by this ridiculous "vision" that Kelly has where he is suddenly on Broadway or at a burlesque show and this horrible dance sequence that lasted forever, all in the name of his character finding a good ending to their swashbuckling movie. From swashbuckler to Broadway is a bit of a stretch. Speaking of stretch, visions shouldn't take up half a movie in MY book.

This movie was genuinely bad. I am sorry that this is considered a classic. I guess we can look for future generations to hail the Beegee's and Peter Frampton for their "ingenious" work when they name "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" a musical "classic" as well. After I saw "Singin' In The Rain" I could clearly see why the musical genre took a steep dive back then.

Rebel Without a Cause (1955)

Performances were excellent, this picture is truly one of most outstanding of the 50s.

[7/10 · 27 May 2005]

I saw this film for the 2nd time, expecting to get nothing new whatsoever out of it. I was delighted. I recognized things about this movie that brought out its fullness. I loved the visual storytelling that goes on in this picture. The scene when all 3 characters Jim Stark (James Dean), Judy (Natalie Wood), and Plato (Sal Mineo) are all gathered in the police station on screen at once but in 3 different worlds. The only thing dividing them was the thin glass of the office windows. I also noticed a theme about the jacket that was great. First Plato wouldn't even acknowledge Jim's gesture or jacket, toward the end it is put over him as he sleeps, and then he is shot while wearing it and Jim zips him up in it as they carry him off. It demonstrated growth and change in the relationship in a visual way.

Ray had fascinating shots such as when the Starks family is arguing over what to do about the fatal crash incident and whether or not to inform the police. The camera tilted to and fro giving an insane look at the situation which was fitting considering the parents were relating to the child in an insane way. The performances were excellent and this picture is truly one of most outstanding of the fifties. I paid particularly close attention to targeting schemes from Hollywood in this film in that it was a significant contributor to a new genre. The jazz/saxophone music in the background during the planetarium scene in the beginning was VERY similar to "West Side Story" and the clothing the "bad" kids wore: leather jackets , T-shirts, and blue jeans were taken from the beat generation poets and later "Happy Days" and "The Wanderers" were to capitalize on this fashion and embed it in our minds. Watching it the second time I FINALLY recognized what Dean was rebelling about: his father's milk toast approach to manhood. It was good to see Jim's father (Jim Backus) assure his son that he would be as strong as he needed him to be. This cemented the rebel's victory for his cause.

I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932)

Excellent 'bio pic' from the 30's: worth a rent

[6/10 · 27 May 2005]

This is a film by director Mervin Leroy from the fledgling years of sound back in the early 30's. It has been referred to as a "bio-pic". The story line was riveting, so much so that I despised the ending even though it delivered the most powerful and appropriate message for this movie.

The movie begins below deck of a states-bound ship from WWI. James Allen, (played by Paul Muni) appeared a bit rushed and unnatural in delivering his lines as did all the characters at first. Time leveled this out and there was a better flow of acting as the film progressed. Muni began to resemble an early "rebel without a cause" character in the dinner scene when he voiced his dissatisfaction with his brother's and mother's plan for his career. It must have seemed very defiant to the audiences of that day as was the provocative dialogue between he and his landlady/first wife. Her come-ons were considered aggressive even by today's standards. I enjoyed the cinematography of this film especially the use of shadow.

I also admired the message portrayed by Leroy when he showed James Allen to be a man willing to pursue his dream and passion despite the cost. The cost was the wrongful charge and unfair punishment of hard labor for stealing. The message of irony in the end that demonstrated how the legal system accomplished the exact opposite of what its designed for was brilliant. The court system, hard labor camp, and cold society made a thief out of an innocent man with a dream. This was successful in eliciting emotion in the audience. I identified with Muni's character in that I wanted to see more of his story: how he evaded the police, wrote/published his book, and secured a position as a Hollywood script consultant. The abrupt "I steal!" ending was very meaningful but I left the screening wanting more.

The Immigrant (1917)

Immortal comedy that can only be considered the work of a genius.

[5/10 · 27 May 2005]

"The Immigrant" was the film that changed my entire perception of Chaplin. I had no idea whatsoever that a silent film could actually make me laugh much less tell a coherent story.

The way Chaplin set up the boat scene was excellent. It was filthy, overcrowded, and uncomfortable and it made me want to "root" for the prosperity of the immigrants. The writing was again much better than I could have expected such as in the scene where he gives his winnings to a poor woman but is mistaken for stealing them. The audience found the flip flopping of dishes (and passengers) on deck to be very funny. I thought it to be a bit schticky, but pleasantly humorous.

The restaurant scene however, left an impression on me that I will hold onto my entire career in film. The beans in the coffee and the imposing thug waiter were a hoot but I particularly liked his methods of peaks and valleys and letting the audience in on secrets while masking them from the characters. These techniques kept us interested such as when he finds the coin (peak), loses the coin (valley, secret), then snakes the artist's tip to pull off paying for the meal (peak, secret). It wasn't so much the antics or writing of that particular scene that affected me though they were outrageously comical. It was rather, a realization that I was in a room with a large majority of teenagers many of whose grandparents weren't even born when this film was made yet these teenagers were all laughing hysterically. How is it that a man's writing and performance make men, women and children laugh in the 20's, 50's, 70's, AND 90's? The answer is immortal comedy that can only be considered the work of a genius.

One A.M. (1916)

Actors today should watch this movie to learn how to be drunk on screen.

[5/10 · 27 May 2005]

I was exposed to Chaplin, in depth, for the first time during the screening of this movie. I expected to find schtick and pie-in-the-face comedy that would utterly bore me to tears. This unrealistic idea of Chaplin was what kept me from experiencing one of the great comedic geniuses of our century.

"One AM", a silent comedy short in which Chaplin played a convincing drunk returning (or attempting to return) home from a night out. I immediately took notice of the writing in that the cab driver remained totally still while his passenger (Chaplin) was a complete drunken mess. I found the unconscious reaching for the cab door handle and trying to find his pants pockets very convincing (I've been there). I laughed out loud as Chaplin goes through inebriated hell to get into his house through the window only to find his key when he gets inside and crawl back out the window to unlock the door. I've seen imitators of this sequence dozens of times, never the less it was still funny to me because it was unexpected.

I must be honest and confess that I found the staircase, clock, and bed scenes a bit tiresome after while. The first time or two he fell down the stairs, got hit by the giant clock, or failed to open the bed, etc. I found amusing, beyond that I became a little frustrated and even bored with the situation. In no way do I say that to diminish Chaplin's delightful movie, but rather that may be the result of uninventive comedy styles overplayed in the cartoons of my youth.

Chaplin appeared to be made of straw at some points in this movie, very agile and acrobatic (bed scene). He was a drunk trying to convince us he was sober which was great! Actors today try too hard to "act" drunk with their words and they fail miserably. They would be well served to watch "One AM" to see how to "be" drunk with no words at all!

Casablanca (1942)

has truly lived up to its reputation as a dramatic film for the ages.

[7/10 · 27 May 2005]

This film is one of the best classic pictures I have ever seen. An interesting story line and compelling performances are what I found so attractive about this movie. Kudos to Curtiz. The set was nearly perfect and was very convincing. I felt the heat of the Moroccan town as the camera swept through the markets in the streets. I was amazed to hear that this was shot almost entirely in a Hollywood studio. I wouldn't have noticed unless I was told otherwise. The song "As Time Goes By" was moving even to a former punk/grunge rocker like myself which says something for its power.

The topic is very interesting in that it deals with the mystery and intrigue of WWII and the efforts to defeat Nazi tyranny. A beautiful love story was also mixed in with the political refugee plot which held my interest for the entire length of the film. The dialogue was excellent, the best I've seen from the era. This picture was so well written and directed that it would have been great without big name actors and actresses but it was because of the big name cast that it has become the timeless classic that it is.

Humphrey Bogart as "Rick" was stellar in his performance. I believed the character to be a heart-broken man embittered and buried in self-pity all hidden under the mask of congeniality. This mask is rudely removed by a bottle of liquor. "You played it for her you can play it for me!" is only one memorable and dynamic line from this movie that launched the Bogart cult and mystique.

Ingrid Bergman as "Ilsa" was adorable. I could easily see why two men would both share a common love for her. I was enamored by her delivery and found myself sympathizing with both Rick and Lazlo for losing or almost losing her. This movie has sparked in me an interest for the work of Ingrid Bergman.

This was a film I would recommend for anyone who loves the cinema. It has truly lived up to its reputation as a dramatic film for the ages.

Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

I can't see what everyone is raving about: this was a bad pic

[3/10 · 27 May 2005]

I regret to report that I did not find this movie enjoyable. In fact, I had a very difficult time staying awake during the screening even after a full nights rest. I haven't felt that way about a movie since being forced to watch science flicks in grade school. What turned me off was the confused genre. Was it a horror story or was it a Gothic romance? It wasn't much of either. It was fun to watch Boris Karloff clamber around like a silly over-sized idiot in undersized clothes (which also reminds me of myself in grade school) but that was about all that it offered me. I know I risk offending fans of this picture but I must be honest. There was nothing frightening about either monster character. Frankenstein was on screen so much that one would assume that the audience was expected to identify with him rather than fear him. If we were to identify with him then the story line and dialogue needed drastic overhauling to pull it off. I did like the scene with the old man. His being blind presented a message of beauty only being skin deep. The cigars and wine were ridiculous and I was again dozing off. I really enjoyed Elsa Lanchester as the bride (not as Shelley) and Whale only gave her a few brief moments. She jerked her head about and wildly looked about as if terrified by all of her surroundings. This was intriguing. Her head-splitting shriek also served the purpose of jarring me awake from the previous hours of mind numbing pseudo-acting.

It appeared that Whale's use of shadow and light was good (old man's house and catacombs). Pretorius' little people in the jars also seemed to be a good attempt at special effect. Despite these attempts at quality there is nothing (outside of sound) that would distinguish this movie from films made 10 years earlier(the '20s) and there is nothing I would consider to be historic or amazing about this film except the fact that the viewing public has raved about it. This, I believe, says something about the viewing public.

Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

Great acting, great directing, one flaw but overall good movie

[5/10 · 27 May 2005]

This is clearly one of the better pictures to come out of the sixties. Arthur Penn was able to bring an audience to a place of identification with notorious robbers and murderers.

The casting of this film was the greatest feat. I'm not a big Warren Beatty fan but he really scored big in this movie. He did a great job convincing me that he was THE Clyde Barrows and Faye Dunaway was great as "Bonnie". I am a big Gene Hackman fan and I believe his role as supporting actor in this was phenomenal (he usually is).

I took the cinematography for granted until I started to remember that this was 1967 and really ground breaking for that time. The person chasing the getaway car was blasted directly in the face and the scene at the end when they're riddled with bullets also had not been seen before (to my knowledge). Both must have been huge shockers to audiences of that day.

Arthur Penn did a great job in keeping my interest by telling a story and not just relaying events like a newscaster or trying to get creative by cutting a "semi" bio/crime pic into pieces and forcing on the viewers as an ensemble.

I did notice one area that could have been improved in my opinion. There were no real villain characters to fear. This was the same problem with "I Am A Fugitive From a Chain gang". This picture had no real identifiable villain character just a conglomerate of faceless policemen and a 20 second scene with a Texas Ranger. He could have possibly brought more out in the Ranger guy and made us know him and hate him or fear him more so that we could identify more with Bonnie and Clyde.

Aside from this one very minor imperfection, this was a splendid movie.

Lost in La Mancha (2002)

A fascinating insight to the world of high stakes storytelling

[8/10 · 9 May 2005]

I had the opportunity of seeing this film as part of the Edinburgh Film Festival in 2002. A group of us, all filmmakers, saw this 'making of' together and were left speechless by what we saw.

The challenges faced by this filmmaker (Terry Gilliam) were uncanny and catastrophic and every step of the way, it was captured on film for posterity. From casting problems to actor health problems, to impossible weather conditions, this film shows how a great director is to react when the worst of the worst happens. As a filmmaker, I had to really reconsider whether I knew what I was getting into. Gilliam's composure under fire is amazing. Lost in La Mancha started out as a "making of" Gilliam's "Don Quioxte" but actually wound up being an excellent educational documentary for what can go wrong with even the best of film endeavors. If you're interested in how films are made, I definitely recommend you pick up a copy of "Lost in La Mancha". It is a fascinating insight to the world of high stakes storytelling.

Citizen Kane (1941)

There is a reason this is a MUST SEE for all Cinephiles

[8/10 · 8 May 2005]

Orson Welles effectively employed writing, cinematography, mis en scene, directing, sound, editing, acting, and even ideology to bring us his masterpiece Citizen Kane.

This script was written to provide an immediate "button" by which we're engaged to continue watching. The button is an old man dying, dropping a glass ball, and uttering the word "Rosebud". This soon becomes, what Hitchcock called, "The Mcguffin", an object, in this case 'information', that is pursued throughout the picture. The audience, like the reporter on the screen, becomes curious to find out who or what "rosebud" is. Another element of writing that was used effectively was the exposition of the newspaper tycoon's back story via a newsreel and at other times the newspaper headline. A great use of subtext was displayed in the wife's constant building of jigsaw puzzles. It was a metaphor for the life of Kane and the jigsaw builder was the reporter.

Cinematography and mis en scene worked together to give the picture a timeless quality that allows for a film student to be taken back to the early 20th century and experience Kane's life in the first person. The smoke-filled rooms and silhouettes of the news guys make us feel like they are in the theater with us while conferring and asking their questions. Close ups and soft lighting allow us to feel comfortable with Kane as he falls in love with the "singer". The mis en scene of the Kane mansion was excellent (for that time). I had difficulty determining if the establishing shot of the large mansion was an actual house or just a painted set. The dramatic point of the movie when Kane was tearing apart Susan's (Dorothy Comingmore) bedroom was perfectly dressed and perfectly destroyed before our eyes. Other moments of mis en scene: Kane as a boy in the setting of pure white snow bespeaks his innocence. The crowded room of statues at the end had me looking closely to determine if any of the statues were genuine! Another noteworthy mention is Orson Welles makeup, however much he wore, was so realistic it was frightening. He looked as he did at his ACTUAL late age prior to his passing.

Sound and editing worked well together to bolster the drama of many scenes in this film. From the scary, sad music establishing the Kane mansion and Kane's death to the screech of a cockatiel marking his wife's departure, sound was a consistent element of dramatic support. The continual audio overlaps like Kane's clapping for Susan's private performance to the public applause of his nomination, laughter that steals in as Susan attempts to perform her operetta, a scream from a party outside the room as Kane slaps her, and the shrill shriek of the cockatiel as she leaves Kane, all made for great exposition. Also, the deep resonating echoes in the Kane mansion tell us how open, cold, and lonely the house must have been.

Editing was smart and, as the great editing genius Dmytrk taught, invisible. Economic use of quick cuts and swish pans during the Dinner table scene between Kane and Mary, transitions from Kane and Susan in her room, to Kane and his political friends at his nomination, and from this to his grand public acceptance speech allowed for much information and the passing of time to be delivered effectively and quietly.

William Randolph Hearst, the famous newspaper tycoon, whom this film is purported to portray, was so insulted by its similarities to his life, he banned its mention in any of his many newspapers (sounds like something Kane would do). According to Dr. Jack K. Ringler, historian and professor of history at CCSN, Mr. Hearst was widely known to use his newspapers to stir up agitation from the American public towards the Spanish government just prior to the Spanish-American war. This, Hearst believed, made for good stories and GREAT circulation. The fact that Kane is found to harp on his editors and writers declaring, "We will go to war against Spain" clearly demonstrates Welles' ideology through his character Kane, whose life, at the very least, parallels Mr. Hearst's. The ideology of twisted news reporting that is bent to flow the way of the personal views of the media 'owners' (i.e. Ted Turner) clearly comes across throughout the movie. Kane's declaration, "I determine what the people need to hear" exemplifies the media's ability (and sometimes willingness) to editorialize instead of report fact.

The directing of Citizen Kane was so tight that it is difficult to believe that it was accomplished by a 1st-time director, and by a director that acted the lead role at the same time! His choice to make an unorthodox choice of staging, acting, editing, and framing the dinner table scenes with his wife Mary (Agnes Moorhead), his movement and blocking of actors in the opera performance scenes, and his presentation of the Hearst/Kane dwelling were brave for 1941! His vision of the finished piece is the only explanation for the successful integration of so many film elements.

Mr. Ice Cream Man (1996 Video)

Ice Cream, Ice picks, Poptarts: My childhood as a fat black kid.

[2/10 · 11 July 2003]

Some people have taken offense at the many references in this film to the stupid fat black kid, but I grew up as a stupid fat black kid and so I felt this film was a lesson in realism for all fat black kids (like myself). I really related to this kid the whole way through. But how could I not??? THIS MOVIE HAS IT ALL! I thought Friday the 13th part VII was good but BOY was I in for a shock! This is by far the greatest horror film of all time! Evil DeadII hath no competition for this FEATURE FILM. The cinematography: ruled. The acting: superb. The writing: intriguing. Buy this film. Own this DVD. Steal this VHS anything to get your hands on the glorious, soon to be sequeled, Mr. Ice Cream Man. You'll never eat a poptart the same way again.

Mr. Ice Cream Man (1996 Video)

Ice Cream, Ice picks, Poptarts: My childhood as a fat black kid.

[2/10 · 11 July 2003]

Some people have taken offense at the many references in this film to the stupid fat black kid, but I grew up as a stupid fat black kid and so I felt this film was a lesson in realism for all fat black kids (like myself). I really related to this kid the whole way through. But how could I not??? THIS MOVIE HAS IT ALL! I thought Friday the 13th part VII was good but BOY was I in for a shock! This is by far the greatest horror film of all time! Evil DeadII hath no competition for this FEATURE FILM. The cinematography: ruled. The acting: superb. The writing: intriguing. Buy this film. Own this DVD. Steal this VHS anything to get your hands on the glorious, soon to be sequeled, Mr. Ice Cream Man. You'll never eat a poptart the same way again.

The Score (2001)

The overpowering cast didn't sink the boat: Better than Oceans11

[6/10 · 5 January 2002]

The big talk is about the combination of 3 generations of acting: Brando, De Niro, and Norton. When I saw how powerful the casting was, I feared for Frank Oz and I feared that it would be the typical flat performances of an under-directed cast. I was DEAD WRONG. Frank Oz did a fantastic job in allowing these great actors plenty of space to do their thing and yet he got some great performances. Basset wasn't quite believable in her role as 'thief's girlfriend' but she had such a minor role that it didn't detract too much. In fact, the big surprise here was Ed Norton. He turned in the most convincing performance of them all! Way to go Gen-X'r!!! I voted this film a 7 primarily because of the Sloooowwww start. not much action and LOTS of Basset scenes made for a weak opening. In fact, even the exchanges between De Niro and Brando were missing something in the beginning. Overall, I definitely feel this was a better film than the recently released, Oceans 11 in that 'Score' offered at least SOME tension which draws you into the crime scene and opens you up to a world that you never knew existed (Oceans 11 offers ZERO tension but is nearly identical in plot to this picture)

Billy Madison (1995)

Greatest Sandler movie next to Happy Gilmore

[8/10 · 2 September 2001]

what do the words "pure Sandler" mean to you? I'll tell you what they mean to me Happy Billy "Gilmore" Madison...that's what! You saw "Overboard" first? That probably biased you against this poor Jewish kid from Montana... What you needed to do was employ some common sense and recognize that Overboard was an abortion of a movie BEFORE you saw it...leaving you pure to enjoy Sandler in one of his "purist" performances. This film was a laugh a minute which equates to about 180 laughs at about 5 cents a pop! you can't beat that with a Dom Delouise/ Burt Reynolds movie! (believe me, I've tried!). Here we have Sandler CLOCKING 1st graders with a dodge ball, threatening to beat one up for a snack pack, and a cameo by Steve Buscemi! This movie, among Sandler flicks, was topped only by "Happy Gilmore" then, unfortunately, all the other films slowly degraded to the lowest depths of Dante's Inferno... I got 4 words for you "Little Nicky" enough said....anyway....if you like jibberish and sarcastic laughing followed by a horrendous "SHADDUP!" then fork out the 3 bucks for a rental and enjoy, or just come over and watch it at my house. I have it on a constant loop day and night. Thank you and amen. Andrew

Rat Race (2001)

Canonball Run IV only worse: instead of Burt we got Whoopi

[1/10 · 1 September 2001]

This is only the 3rd movie that I have ever walked out on. Living in Las Vegas, Rat Race was all the rage and EVERYONE couldn't wait to see this "Las Vegas" movie. It was so miserable, acting was terrible, editing was obvious - probably done by students, and the story was SO done before that I not only wanted my money back but I was willing to PAY somebody to get me out of the theater. Awful movie old jokes from Canonball Run...and I'm now convinced that Whoopi Goldberg in a GIANT RED FLAG for a bad script. DONT BELIEVE THE TEENIE BOPPER VOTE.... I wouldn't even recommend renting this film...wait for it to come on regular television or cable - and then make plans to be gone that night.

Joanie Loves Chachi (1982–1983)

A Chachi in the hand is worth 2 Fonzis in the bush!

[25 June 2001]

Chachi my Chachi - This show was the epitome of 70's closure.

We stepped into the 80's and Joanie and Chachi began to meld into ONE being that was the essence of Chach. I miss them both and recall Joanie and Chachi hosting the 1980 New Year's countdown and at 9 yrs of age, I remembered musing to myself, "Why does Chachi not have his own show!?" It turned out to be prophetic (I guess I had the Spirit of Chachi working inside me as many of us still do) and lo and behold JOANIE LOVES CHACHI. I cried everytime I watched it because I knew it couldn't last. I also took great hope in the realization that the power of Chach would go on and MUST go on and that my sense of loss would be fulfilled by Charles in Charge. Today, I am a thriving Chachi impersonator and travel the "Chachi lookalike" contest circuits in hopes that this show JOANIE LOVES CHACHI would rise up and be resurrected to vindicate my incessant admiration for the beautiful work of art that is "Joanie loves Chachi". I remember the one show where we were blessed by the playful side of Chachi and were allowed to hear his melodic voice. Anyone with a recording of that show is , I'm sure, a millionaire right now simply because it shows a side of our beloved Chachi that is other than his deeply spiritual side and in stark contrast to his internationally powerful political side, in time, others like yourself will one day long for the return of the Chach and that all mankind would join hands in the spirit of Chachi and bring an end to the oppression of violence and war that is SO UNChachi-like and hopefully, we can pool our visualization and visualize a new world leader. It is time to put Chachi in Charge. Or at least have a Joanie loves Chachi reunion show that I might enjoy. Thank you. Stay Chachi and remember, if ever you are in a bind, just ask yourself, "What would Chachi do?" Andrew