kellyadmirer Reviews

Berlin Affair (1970 TV Movie)

Yes, There's One In Every Crowd

[8/10 · 11 October 2023]

By which I mean everyone else apparently dislikes this TV movie but I kind of like it. It is perhaps the last (I can't think of a later one) of the 1960s "spy" genre movie - you know, featuring some super smooth and slick Sean Connery/Dean Martin/Robert Wagner/Robert Vaughn/James Coburn type who knows everything and can do anything while working for some all-so-secret-and-powerful yet unnamed super spy agency, surrounded by women flaunting their charms and throwing themselves at him - of a kind that only outlasted the era in the increasingly campy James Bond films. Darren McGavin is a hoot, trying so hard to play it straight but once in a while uncorking his Kolchak-style sarcastic-style wit and cynicism, which is dreadfully against character but still fun to see. Why do I like this overly complex, out of date already spy sturm und drang? First, it's one of the few TV movies of the period shot on location and we get great scenes of Berlin. Second, McGavin is awesome even though his characterization wobbles all over the place as he seems to delight in making faces the more absurd the situation gets. Third, the female co-stars are fabulous, including his criminally underused wife, Kathie Browne. Fourth, the script is kind of clever even if indecipherable at times. (Bad guy: "Remember me, I work for XYZ?" McGavin: "Ah, XYZ." Bad guy: "Yes, XYZ" McGavin: "AG!" Okay, you have to be following the plot to understand why that's amusing, and incidentally, "AG" is just German for "Inc.," so this is kind of German in-joke inside a Hollywood production, which you just don't see too often. Okay, anyway....) The female characters are the only ones allowed to show emotion in this kind of flick, and they do a good job. It's just moody and episodic, with loose cannon McGavin struggling mightily to keep a straight face carrying it. Okay, go ahead, hate me for being the oddball who likes this, but I do. I think it's worth catching if you're just in the mood for something moody.

Father Knows Best: Home for Christmas (1977 TV Movie)

Fabulous Nostalgia

[10/10 · 24 November 2022]

I had never seen this before until the holiday season in 2022, finding it was awesome. I did catch FKB a bit in reruns a few decades ago as a kid, it seemed nice and wholesome if a bit dated and quaint in b&w and with the stylized suburban middle class setting. So, I wouldn't call myself a huge FKB fan, but certainly was familiar with it. I've come to appreciate the simple, straightforward FKB formula more over time despite not generally being a big fan of '50s shows like this (I've never seen much Leave It To Beaver or Lassie, for instance). Maybe that's why I sought this out.

Let me address a common criticism I see about FKB from time to time, including at times from a cast member or two. No, FKB doesn't represent reality. Yes, it is formulaic and idealized and can give people "the wrong lessons" about life's issues and trials and tribulations. Is FKB a primer on the normal family with all the slings and arrows of misfortune coming at it? Absolutely not.

But a cop show with weekly drug busts and killings, a court show with weekly dramatic trials, a sci fi show with starships, an island with castaways on a three-hour tour, a sitcom with jokes every minute or two - those aren't reality, either. Robert Young, in a 1984 interview, put it perfectly - these shows aren't supposed to reflect real life. Weekly TV shows don't work that way and would be impossible to sustain as a series without an agreed-upon formula that is supposed to reflect only one part of the human experience. If you are looking for real life, go watch the news. FKB is not meant to be educational, and if you're trying to figure life out from any TV show, good luck with that. FKB was intended, and works for people who are looking for what it can offer, as simple entertainment for those looking for an escape from life's tribulations. It is not supposed to remind viewers of the dark sides of life and seems pretty obvious and open about that.

Let me just say... anyone can be critical of any show or not like something about it. However, this holiday special some reason just hit the spot for a sentimental journey, wanting a little update of "old friends" from the past, and reminisce a little during the holidays. If that doesn't describe you - this one likely won't be right for you. It leans heavily on past associations with the cast and characters. There won't be any more FKB with the original cast, and the fact everyone was still in their prime and not slowed down by age or anything else 17 years after the show ended was a real stroke of luck for viewers interested in a reunion.

My only complaint about this reunion - come on, I have to critique it for something - is that Elinor Donahue (the then-current, 1977 version) doesn't show up until the last 20 minutes. That is a real shame, as she was the one I was most interested in. I suppose Donahue had become a relatively big TV star by then and her husband was a big deal in the industry, so she could have overshadowed some of the others who were more known just for the show. She was pretty busy around then, too.

It was nice how they brought in the familiar characters one by one and gave each of them their own moment, and thankfully the "new characters" - the kids' wife/husband etc. - are kept mercifully low-key. We're not here for them, the point of a show like this is to catch up with the regulars, and in this sense, the show delivers in spades.

The way they tied everything in with the original series was great, such as with Betty's bf, if a bit forced at times. I'm not a big fan of the Andersons "hitting the road" at the end, but hey, it's all good. Those are my critiques, not much, but overall it is perfect - if you are familiar with the original show and like it to some degree. I think they pull this off better than a lot of other such reunion shows that tend to inject forced drama to "be relevant to today." This is perfectly relevant as an update and shows one way a 1950s middle class family could have evolved into the 1970s in a natural sort of way with only relatively minor family issues.

Jane Wyatt is just outstanding, such a rock of stability and power and still at the top of her game despite being semi-retired (by choice, she could have worked whenever she wanted to) by this point. She enunciates perfectly and makes sure everyone in the cheap seats can hear every syllable like the real acting pro she was and never once betrays a false emotion or sense of uncertainty about what she is conveying.

Robert Young, fresh off his huge hit "Marcus Welby," is so folksy and low-key in a good way that he doesn't even seem to be acting. If anything, his skills had only improved since the original show, perhaps due to the "Welby" series honing his craft. He keeps things from getting too melodramatic and serious, not an easy thing to do in this context. At times - such as pointedly doing his "I'm home" yell - he obviously is fully aware of and purposefully playing to the fans by hitting the old familiar notes without making it look like an imposition or forced or something, as you sometimes see in these kinds of reunion shows (and as hilariously sent-up by Alan Rickman in "Galaxy Quest").

As for the Anderson "kids" (all in mid-life by now), Donahue is so vivid when she finally shows up that she takes over. We even get one of her classic over-the-top emotional outbursts (see the Star Trek "Metamorphosis" episode for the best example). This is perfect if you're in the right mood (and perhaps a bit much if you're not, but it is what it is).

The others also are good, Billy Gray thankfully doesn't overdo the schmaltz when the script just tees it up for him to overplay his "situation," while Lauren Chapin seems to have mellowed and just seems normal - no longer the sometimes annoying character she was in the show. I'd say her "Kitten" character is the one that has changed the most, and in a good way. Overall, Robert Young is the one that holds everything together, the glue that makes this work, despite his making it all seem so natural and normal that you barely notice he's the hub of the wheel. Young deserves a lot of credit for pulling this off and making it work, the one indispensable character and a brilliant acting job. Should have gotten another Emmy for this to add to his statues, but they tend not to reward actors for reprising old roles like this no matter how well they do them.

I'll try to put this on at Christmastime from now on, I just wish there was a good, clean, sharp DVD copy available, as the old VHS copies available online are terrible. Highly recommended if you are familiar with the show and curious about how things turned out for the characters. Others can take a pass and find some other show that will pull at their own heartstrings. Certainly worth watching for me.

Stranded (2001)

Better Than You Think

[6/10 · 5 January 2022]

There are two camps about "Stranded." It either is a scientifically stupid and poorly acted piece of drivel that draws out an obvious plot interminably, or it is a unique low-rent take on something quite interesting with moments of sheer delight.

I am in the latter camp.

Sure, the science makes no sense. Anyone with the first clue about space can spot the numerous errors. These include instant communication from Mars to Earth and so forth. Go pat yourself on the head for having the astounding perception to spot that sort of thing and whine about it. If that sort of thing bugs you, well, it's a shame you can't just learn to suspend your belief and go with the concept rather than the details. Allow yourself to be entertained and maybe you will be someday.

Rather than dwell on the negative, though, I focus on the attitude and the story - and I liked both. The attitude is pure Vincent Gallo. If you don't know who he is, I highly recommend you go out and find "Buffalo '66" somewhere. It is one of the most original films you will ever see with all sorts of inside jokes (most hilariously about the placekicker who cost the Buffalo Bills a key playoff win, but that's another story). "Buffalo '66" is one of those films that sticks with you as you wonder, "did he really do that?"

I am not some kind of Vincent Gallo groupie. He is an acquired taste. Acerbic, downright annoying, and resplendent in his indifferent and almost vulgar acting style, Gallo is perfect for the role of the "smart guy" know-it-all usually portrayed in sci-fi pablum as aliens (Vulcans, androids, whatever). Here, Gallo goes stays in his standard lane to pile on the dislikability intentionally like shoveling cement into a post hole. Most unexpectedly, it works. Gallo easily the strongest figure in the film precisely because he is unpredictable, direct, and operates unexpectedly for his character with utterly base motives. He is the axis around which the plot turns, the car crash on the roadside everyone stops to look at, and saves this film from ossifying from predictability and tedium..

Everybody else pretty much descends into one stereotype or another. There's the guy who thinks he can fix any problem if he just tries hard enough, the self-doubting replacement commander, the easygoing guy who you know isn't going to make it but will be everyone's friend until he goes, and so forth. The writing for the most part is pedestrian and obvious and you can spot the ending a light year away.

However, you can enjoy this film, you just need to be patient (meaning, have nothing better to do). There are moments that are transcendent in their uniqueness for a complete film. A guy who knows he's got no time left starts randomly talking about John Carter and Barzoom. Another guy, circling in the command module high above like a Michael Collins and perfectly safe while knowing the crew below has no hope, goes abruptly, "I've got to head back to Earth in two days. Well, gotta go, cya!" There's wild humor in this stuff if you read enough into it and what this says about how humans viscerally react in such situations without the phony macho posing.

But the best moment of the film belongs to Maria de Medeiros, who you might recognize from "Pulp Fiction." After Gallo's character makes one of the worst come-ons in any film anywhere but is oh-so-right for Gallo, she turns him down with some of the most pointed jabs of all time. Her suggestions of how they might portray him with a statue (undoubtedly portraying him doing what she recommends he do to enjoy himself for his final hours) is hilarious and devastating at the same time. We've been waiting the entire time for someone to finally tell Gallo's character off and it is a moment of pure catharsis. That scene would be totally impossible in any Hollywood cookie-cutter sci-fi film where everything has to be oh-so-serious and for that reason alone is so enjoyable to watch.

Yes, "Stranded" has all sorts of amateurish moments. The opening credits sequence is arduous to sit through, and if if you made it through that, you deserve a medal. The next half hour isn't much better. But if you go in just suspending your belief and look for the humor and fun in the (of course, Mr. Or Ms. Smart Guy Scientific Genius) completely impossible complications and payoff, you may actually find yourself entertained. And that goes double if you, like me, are unbearably tired of the same old Hollywood factory films that all follow the same tired conventions and have the same tired "complications" and tired plot twists and oh-so-clever tired dialog. Go watch something with Kristen Stewart or George Clooney or Matt Damon instead if that is what it takes to turn you on.

"Stranded" may have a lot of problems, but it has original moments that are pure gold. I liked it. I bet you will relish and remember some of its delicious moments long after you forget the longwinded and mundane bits.

The Unholy Four (1954)

Tiresome But With A Good Payoff

[5/10 · 12 November 2021]

I watched "The Unholy Four" (the US title) because it stars Paulette Goddard. She was absolutely brilliant in 'Modern Times" (1936) and a few other films. Unfortunately, this is not one of them.

This is one of those the-butler-did-it-in-the-parlor-with-a-candlestick high society dramas that might actually be improved if the dialog were just a radio play. Then you would have to fill in the blanks with your imagination instead of being subjected to really uninteresting visuals.

The film begins with a somewhat high-concept premise typical of the time. A man (William Sylvester) returns to a fancy mansion (yes, it's that kind of film, all drawing-room talk and men dressed in tuxedos) coincidentally on the night of a big party where everyone essential to the plot is conveniently present. People who knew him tend to faint (very unconvincingly, Paulette I'm looking at you) when they see him, but he transitions back into his old life at warp speed. Turns out (this takes an ungodly long time to be revealed) he was lost at sea while fishing with "friends." Apparently, someone hit him on the head to help matters (and this is never shown and must be assumed from random clues). However, he survived as an amnesiac for three or four years (the script is a little hazy on precise details, apparently he lost his memory for three years but was gone for four for some reason). Sure, happens all the time.

After a fairly interesting start, the film quickly devolves into a standard "who tried to kill him" scenario, with additional dead bodies popping up to liven the proceedings. I'll give the author (not George Sanders) credit, it dishes out its share of red herrings, though you won't believe any of them. The last fifteen minutes is actually fairly good, with a suspenseful and satisfying conclusion.

The problem is the dreary hour it takes to get to that conclusion. Although Goddard gets prominent billing as the "star" (hey, can we make the titles any bigger?) the story actually revolves around the guy who suddenly shows back home to throw a spanner in the works. Goddard's character just does standard "surprised but then loyal wifey" stuff. Sylvester is given little to work with, and he dutifully does little with it (his hair stylist should have gotten the billing, not him).

People love to say that British actors are always phenomenal, but I didn't see any of that. Sylvester basically sleepwalks through the film until the climax, but it's not really his fault - he's given little to work with. The others are just random asteroids floating around him. They do say their lines with great enunciation, however.

The real problem with the film is that Goddard doesn't even show up until 13 minutes in, and after that she also is given little to do. Instead, we get repeated snarky interludes between Sylvester's character and his colorless former best buds. He has the typical "red herring" antisocial attitude of someone who's a little too obvious as the "bad guy." You know right from the start didn't do what others think he did (he becomes a suspect of nefarious doings himself) because he tries too damn hard to make himself look suspicious. In short, Goddard looks pedestrian, the other women look dull and uninteresting, the men walk around saying pompous things with snide inflections.... quite simply, nothing interesting happens.

Charles Napier is the only remotely believable character as the policeman investigating the entire situation, but his character only appears now and then and strangely seems only vaguely interested in the reasons behind Sylvester's absence for four years. Paul Carpenter as one of the suspects helps at times but certainly can't carry the picture.

I found the direction pedestrian, the acting rote, the wardrobes blah (especially Goddard's), and the setting uninteresting. Everyone seems determined to show as little real emotion as possible, doling it out like water when a group is stranded in the desert. The ending is good, but not enough to warrant sticking through this.

It's okay to have on in the background while you're doing something else. Listen in, maybe glance at the screen when Paulette is talking, and so on. Just don't expect much. Tune in for that ending, and pat yourself on the back for figuring it all out halfway through.

Star Trek: Enterprise: Fortunate Son (2001) Season 1, Episode 10

"Fortunate Son" Is A Muddled Mess

[4/10 · 1 December 2020]

"Fortunate Son" is a muddled mess and quite possibly the worst episode of "Enterprise." I know, it has some competition there, but let's go through it.

The plot revolves around interstellar piracy and the lack of law enforcement in space. We learn that there is a fleet of earth freighters that have no protection against raiders, so their crews take matters into their own hands. These freighters take years to travel between destinations, turning the crews into "families" or, less euphemistically, armed gangs that basically do whatever they want on their journeys.

So, "Fortunate Son" at its heart is about lawlessness and how people exposed to it handle themselves. This isn't the most exciting concept, and there isn't a shred of originality about anything in this episode aside from the inevitable introduction of a new race (who really cares what they're called because they're just another variety of Klingon-variants with the standard forehead ridges, but they're the "Nausicaans") and the concept of freighters. Neither idea is particularly interesting and both seem a bit fanciful given the time periods we're dealing with, but we'll go with it.

The plot is the major problem. Put as succinctly as possible, it's insipid. It also makes virtually no sense. Freighters taking on not just warships but multiple warships, crews who haven't thought through at all what they're doing, a resolution that can be seen a light year away... it's just a cauldron of confusion and banality.

On the bright side, this is undoubtedly the best episode of the series for Ensign Mayweather. We learn through endless tedious monologues about how he grew up on a freighter, what he knows about freighters, how tragic life can be on freighters, blah blah blah. Are you really that interested in freighters and Mayweather? Then this is the episode for you (and I know there are some of you out there). I didn't find anything shown in this episode to be particularly interesting or insightful, but may the speed at which freighters travel is just fascinating to you.

Back to the banality. There is some heavy-handed moralizing going on, and not in a subtle way. They brought LeVar Burton in to direct this (think really hard to figure out why), and the pacing is horrible because we keep getting sidetracked by Mayweather opining about this and that. Maybe Burton's a good director elsewhere, but not here. We get pointless and banal discussions over meals, an extremely forced relationship between Mayweather and the villain or antihero (what he is is unclear from this muddled script), and a truly bizarre climactic moment when Mayweather just leaps into sensitive negotiations and embarks on a pointless monologue where he tries to say something meaningful. He's still trying. Maybe he'll manage it eventually. Oh, since Mayweather is the only person who knows anything about freighters, apparently that's why he's entitled to just talk over Archer and start pacing around the bridge expounding on his own theories.

So, the moralizing of this episode is off the Richter scale. At one point, Archer says to Mayweather in a condescending tone, "You in particular should understand (treating everyone equally)." Oh, geez, I wonder what he's really talking about there? And guess what, vigilantism is bad. Wow, shocker in a show centered around a military ship! The vigilantes resent the sudden appearance of law enforcement for some reason because they've become as bad as the pirates (at least that seems to be the lesson of the week). There are other such "lessons," but I'll stop there.

"Fortunate Son" is an unfortunate episode. We get little of interest from anyone other than Mayweather, T'Pol has a few cameos here and there, and everyone else is basically invisible or ineffective, including Archer. Oh, and the title has nothing to do with the song, if you were wondering about that. Nice little misleading trope there, Rick!

So, if you're a big Ensign Mayweather fan, tune in, but virtually everyone else is going to wonder why this was even made.

Dick Tracy: Shaky's Secret Treasure (1950) Season 2, Episode 19

One of the Best Episodes

[9/10 · 24 September 2019]

"Shakey's Secret Treasure" is one of the best episodes of "Dick Tracey" IMHO. The plot is clever, at least in comparison to other episodes, with lots of fun twists that you don't see coming. Lois Hall and Dabbs Greer get good roles early in their careers and go on to become longtime working actors for the next 50 years. While neither ever became a star, they both hung around in bit parts and appeared together again in the penultimate "Little House on the Prairie" episode in 1983. I wonder if they reminisced about filming this 33 years earlier. Anyway, I enjoyed this episode, and if you're going to watch this series, "Shaky's Secret Treasure" is an excellent place to start.

Closer (I) (2013)

Great Short with Lots of Promise

[9/10 · 16 September 2019]

This is a fun little short which doesn't take itself too seriously. There is some bawdy humor, which is rare in the ultra-serious sci-fi genre but offers some welcome relief simply because it is so rare. That may put some viewers off. However, if you aren't a complete nerd about these things - and I admit I may have to struggle against that sometimes myself - and you have a sense of humor, you may find this fun and enjoy the heavy dose of CGI. Francesca Gandolfo, who doesn't have any other credits apparently, steals the show as an alien in tights, while Vincenzo Alfieri provides most of the humor while carrying the plot. "Closer" apparently was intended as a sort of pilot for a film or tv series which never materialized (at least not yet), but it stands on its own and is worth the watch.

Give "Closer" a whirl if you like sci-fi shorts and aren't too grim about everyone playing it absolutely straight as if these things are the Gospel according to Musk. You should be able to find it on Youtube.

The Doomsday Flight (1966 TV Movie)

Influential and Well-Made - But Unlikely - Airplane Thriller

[22 April 2018]

Rod Serling, famous for "Twilight Zone," was one of the most gifted screenwriters in Hollywood. In addition to his two television series (the other the vastly underrated "Night Gallery"), he wrote the screenplays for classics such as "Seven Days in May" and "Planet of the Apes." His talent is undeniable and Serling deservedly is a legend.

"The Doomsday Flight" has the trademark Serling creepiness. Edmond O'Brien, another tremendously underrated Hollywood talent, carries the film with an eccentric but oddly winning performance of a man living on the edge. The cast is loaded with familiar faces such as Edward Asner, John Saxon, and Jack Lord, but O'Brien provides the tension this kind of film badly needs.

Serling was something of an authority on airplanes. His older brother, Robert, was an esteemed aviation writer, and Serling himself was a paratrooper during World War II. So, he knew a lot about the aviation industry and the gaps in its security.

The plot here is simple. A man places a bomb on a passenger plane (a fictional Boeing 797). It is set to activate when the plane ascends to a certain height, then detonate when it descends below that altitude. The plot is thus somewhat similar to that of Sandra Bullock's "Speed."

The performances are gripping, especially for a television movie. Van Johnson as the pilot and Lord as a troubled FBI agent. The direction by William Graham is outstanding for a film of this type, and overall it is a quality production.

There's a fatal problem with the script, however. Serling obviously knew all about pressure-sensitive detonators. They were developed during World War II for military applications. Such detonators do, as the script points out, detonate on air pressure changes at specific altitudes. So, when a plane reaches a certain altitude, they do intend blow up. The "arm after reaching the altitude and then detonate on the way down" is a minor complication.

The problem with the script is that the pressure doesn't change in modern passenger aircraft. The cabins are pressurized. In fact, the cargo holds are pressurized, too. Pressure-activated detonators may work on World War II aircraft that weren't pressurized, but they wouldn't work on a "Boring 797" because the pressure inside the aircraft doesn't reflect the outside air pressure. Even if the cargo hold were not pressurized, there would be no way for the airplane crew to disarm the bomb because access to the cargo hold from the main cabin is impossible - so a ransom threat wouldn't work. Serling undoubtedly knew all that, but figured the audience wouldn't - and, undoubtedly, he was correct.

Anyway, a well-made production that undoubtedly influenced the later "Airport" which began the entire "disaster film" craze of the 1970s (and there are some nice explosions in this film). Worth a watch, just try not to think too much about it.

My Favorite Martian: The Matchmakers (1963) Season 1, Episode 2

Bit of a Let-Down

[7/10 · 3 February 2018]

After a fantastic "My Favorite Martian" pilot episode full of snappy lines, an evocative plot, and Ray Walston dramatically breaking the fourth wall at the end, episode 2, "The Matchmakers," is a bit of a let-down. The wonder and mystery of having a space alien in your home is gone already, and we're already into parlor tricks to establish that, yes, Uncle Martin is indeed a Martian.

Uncle Martin demonstrates a new talent, as he does in virtually every episode - he can talk to the animals like Dr. Doolittle - and, as usual we run with that for the 26 or so minutes.. One dog is in love with another and, well.... Uncle Martin wants to help. This occupies his attention as much as a seemingly more serious romantic issue involving people that he also "manages" in his spare time. Not that there's anything wrong with this, - the juxtaposition fits in nicely with the series' somewhat high-concept tone in which Uncle Martin is basically slumming by being around earthlings and from his lofty vantage point (sorry, the opportunities for puns just leap out at you with "My Favorite Martian") views humans and dogs as of equal value beneath Martians' superior intellect. Everything works out in the end for everyone and every... dog, of course, this is a '60s sitcom after all.

It is not that "The Matchmakers" is a poor episode. It simply feels taken out of production order and is a jarring descent to the mediocre after the soaring pilot, which admittedly took a lot of time to put together and had an obviously impressive budget compared to the rest of the series. "The Matchmakers" also is jarring in some other ways, such as the disappearance (never to be seen again, in fact) of the lovely Ina Victor as Tim's love interest Annabelle. This wasn't uncommon in sitcoms back in the day - whatever happened to Richie Cunningham's basketball-dribbling brother? - but isn't even casually explained in a "she left for college" kind of way. Since the Annabelle character was so striking and helped sell the show in the first place, one has to wonder why they didn't keep her around, though the plan apparently was to have a different girl as guest star each week to serve as Tim's foil and possible conquest.

The soap-opera focus on the crisis in the adults' relationship in "The Matchmakers" also is jarring. If "My Favorite Martian" did one thing badly throughout its run, it was deal with real emotion. If the ubiquitous laugh track had been lost somehow, this show would have been in trouble quick. As long as Uncle Martin barks in an effort to heal the dogs' broken hearts, "My Favorite Martian" was on firm footing, but Peyton Place it was not.

Of course, the episode, as all of them were, is saved by Ray Walston's avuncular (sorry) attitude and Bill Bixby's "I feel you" empathy. If anything, "The Matchmaker" is a lesson in how even a poor sitcom script with shaky acting by the guest stars can be saved by the inherent likeability of the leads.

The Magical World of Disney: Mars and Beyond (1957) Season 4, Episode 12

Uncannily Prescient

[10/10 · 14 July 2012]

This episode was a fairly standard Disney attempt at educating the public about space exploration, by which I mean that it was decades ahead of the rest of Television or movies of the time. It had some heavy science behind it. NASA keeps referring to this series today, in 2012, for the uncanny accuracy of some of its depictions. Yes, we get fodder for the kids such as shark-like plants, and the usual "dying Martian civilization" pablum, but get beyond that and you start the see the real wheels spinning.

For the 1950s, the quality is exceptional. One should recall that Americans in those days who were fortunate enough to have a TV set were limited to two or, for some, three networks (depending on whether Dumont broadcast in their area and was still in operation). Also, everything was in black and white, and TV sets were small by today's standards. So, when you look at something like this episode today, in vivid color on a large screen, you aren't really seeing what people back then saw. But the fact that people still watched and enjoyed it anyway shows the power that raw science still exerted on the masses back when the US was on the ascendant. That era is long gone, of course.

"Mars and Beyond" stretched the limits. It boggles the mind that Disney could get huge ratings for shows that were packed with dense scientific jargon and obscure physics. Seen today, one can pick apart episodes such as this for out-there concepts that died in the 1950s, such as fleets of nuclear-powered ships basically invading Mars en masse (well, that idea may still happen someday....). Everything is so clear in hindsight, eh? Heck, at that time we hadn't even launched a single satellite, and here they were showing a Mars shot in graphic detail! And competing successfully against shows like "I Love Lucy" and "The Honeymooners"! Just mind-blowing when you put it in perspective.

However, this particular episode is even more astonishing than usual just for how right it was about some minutely precise details. A sequence on the descent to Mars shows the use of parachutes and thrusters that almost perfectly foreshadows the arrival in 2012 of the "Curiosity" lander. NASA helpfully points out these similarities on a regular basis.

Clearly, somebody was thinking hard back then, conceptualizing something so remote from ordinary, everyday existence that you get the idea where the phrase "like a rocket scientist" comes from. You don't have to guess who was doing all this thinking - the man is right there on screen, Wernher von Braun (along with another of his German cohorts, Ernst Stuhlinger). Von Braun was sort of the poster child for NASA in the 1950s, and today it is easy to see why, with his reassuring (to me, anyway), no-nonsense "it's only about science" attitude.

Now, von Braun takes his hits on boards such as this from moralistic and patronizing know-it-alls because he had the misfortune to grow up in Nazi Germany. Well, if the US were to be taken over by, say, China, everyone in the US could be tainted by the US adventurism in places like Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan, so get off that high horse, my friend. Von Braun was a technocrat before the term was invented, and survived a corrupt system by focusing on science. He later did his best to atone for whatever sins he had to commit by basically creating NASA, though I'm sure the ones who smugly condemn him now would have done the only honorable thing - refusing to work for their homeland's horrendous dictatorship - by walking themselves straight into a concentration camp voluntarily out of sheer moral purity. Yeah, that's real likely. Yes, his homeland's leaders required the use of slave labor, and von Braun's early work flowed from that. Can't deny it. But by surviving, Von Braun was able to go on to do something admirable for the entire human race and perhaps redeem Germany's reputation (at least scientifically) just a smidgen. Let's hope you do something as worthwhile for humanity as get the first man on the Moon. I highly doubt that will happen.

Anyway, if you bother to look, it isn't difficult to see the genius touch of von Braun throughout. He still, as in earlier (also exceptional) Disney space animation in this series, was stuck to some extent on the liquid fuel idea that was abandoned when things got real in the 1960s, but that just shows how far his thinking was ahead of mundane reality. There also is a corny precision to the rather far-fetched outlines of the journey to Mars - it wouldn't take a little over a year, it would be "13 months and six days" and so on. Nice flourishes that emphasized that even intricate space flight calculations were simply scientific questions whose answers could be thought out with precision - and this at a time when computers could do little more than simple multiplication. Try calculating planetary geometry with a slide rule and see how far you get.

The truth is, the entire US space program that has done so much good for so many people and for so many reasons came straight out of Peenemunde. It flowed directly from von Braun's (and Stuhlinger's and Oberth's and so many other Germans) brain. If he managed to get a little airtime, it's a lot less than he deserved. Looking back on this series now should remind you that you have men like von Braun to thank for your cell phones and your satellite cable TV and your GPS. If you are so noble and morally above using the work of men like von Braun, who themselves at one time used the work of slave laborers, give that all up to be consistent. Not going to do it? Didn't think so. You are no better than him, and he explored the stars.

Unforgiven (1992)

"'Deserve's Got Nothing To Do With It"

[10/10 · 12 February 2012]

I saw this on it its first run. It came out during a unique period in American history, right after the fall of the USSR and the First Gulf War but during a painful Recession. In some ways the US was riding high, but at the same time it was the captive of its own painful vulnerabilities and imperfections. That is the story of "Unforgiven," transmuted to the Old West.

A tough man and his companions embark on a journey to right some wrongs. Along the way, we learn something about the man, but we don't get his full measure until the very end. What we learn turns everything upside down and leads to a very satisfying conclusion. This simple tale fits into the pure-Americana mold of "True Grit" and "The Searchers." If you haven't seen those two films, you should before you see this one. "Unforgiven" unmistakably walks in their giant footprints.

The key to this film, I believe, is to learn exactly what Clint Eastwood's character, Bill Munny, stands for. At first we don't know what is special about him, or why anyone would approach him for help. He is just a simple farmer, and not a very successful one at that. But he is taken by a story of a prostitute who was unnecessarily and cruelly disfigured in a town called 'Big Whiskey.' While a bounty is involved, it's as insignificant to the quest as the payment in "True Grit." There are much larger issues at stake. There is an underlying air of chivalry that comes straight out of "True Grit": a wronged woman demands justice, vengeance is required, and the worthiness of those involved is irrelevant. Munny thus hooks up with an inexperienced young partner (an obvious commentary on the Glen Campbell role in "True Grit") and his reliable old comrade Ned (Morgan Freeman) and off they go.

Gene Hackman is "Little Bill," a pompous windbag of a sheriff who rules Big Whiskey with the proverbial iron fist. He is riding high, and delights in not just beating his victims, but degrading them. Richard Harris ("English Bob"), a phony dime store novel hero, unwisely ventures into town accompanied, improbably, by his very own biographer (Saul Rubinek). Little Bill finds him fascinating but brings English Bob down to earth quickly. It is the rough and tumble old West where only raw power counts, and Little Bill has it.

Perceptive and clever despite his own faults, Little Bill knows there are hired guns out to kill him. He captures and interrogates Ned, then kills him. When Munny is told this, he at first appears to simply accept it as something that happens in their line of work. Watch, however, his reaction change when he is told that Little Bill put Ned's corpse on display with a big sign saying "This is What Happens to Assassins Around Here." That reaction, one of the most dramatic in any Clint role, sets in motion the climax of the film. We also learn at this point that Munny himself is not, can never be, and cannot consider himself better than anyone else. That fact is important because it shows the source of his humbleness, the demons that haunt him and why he is driven to drink. His character is not the issue here, though, only what it impels him to do.

Right after the 2001 terrorist attacks, I was riding in an airport van back to a hotel after being grounded. Rumors were rife, but everyone knew the world trade center was gone. Nobody knew what to say, but a fellow in the back said simply, "Someone's gonna pay for this." Exactly.

It is not giving anything away to say that when Munny and Little Bill finally meet, there is a brief but epic exchange. "I don't deserve to die like this," Little Bill says. "'Deserve's got nothing to do with it," Munny replies. The whole meaning of the Munny character and, indeed, the film is encapsulated in that one line, in the same way that, say, "A Few Good Men" comes down to "You can't handle the truth." Little Bill is pleading his case, as a member in good standing of the community. He thinks his entire life's work should be taken into account before he is sentenced for what both of them know are unpardonable crimes. Munny unhesitatingly rejects that defense out of hand while acknowledging his own fallibility. Little Bill unfortunately had broken a tacit code of tough men: you may kill people that you must, but you don't take pleasure in their humiliation. A whore must not be deprived of the only thing she could be proud of, a harmless visitor should not be unnecessarily disgraced, a dead but honorable foe should not be publicly mocked. There shall be no mitigating factors whatsoever when you cross that line.

So, you have America, with all its flaws and weaknesses, finally kicking Saddam Hussein out of his intended conquest, Kuwait, and Gorbachev finally tearing down that wall as Reagan demanded. Bill Munny, vile murderer and failure, rights some simple wrongs, and that is all anyone can do. As he rides out of town, you feel as if something greater than a man is present. It is not Munny riding that horse, but the eternal Avenger of honor and decency in the most humble of human forms. His final words temporarily bring the world back into simple balance. And, in this vale of tears, sometimes that's the best you can hope for.

The Magical World of Disney: Man in Space (1955) Season 1, Episode 20

Wernher von Braun Lays It All Out For You

[10/10 · 28 January 2012]

This is an excellent introduction to basic space physics and history. It is brought to you by the Disney folks and the future leaders of what a few years later would become NASA. Most of the information is still valid and useful. As a bonus, you get an up-close look at the nascent US space program and its Germanic roots. Legendary announcer Dick Tufeld ("Lost in Space") narrates in suitably dramatic fashion.

Perhaps the show's greatest accomplishment is how simple some complex concepts are made. Orbital velocity and booster rocket design are explained in particularly comprehensible ways. The brains behind the space program speak here in their own voices, and quite accurately predict numerous details of space flight years before anyone got anywhere near going into orbit: weightless food preparation, psychological testing, cosmic radiation shielding, space medicine, computer control. Some of the early testing methods shown, where volunteers were subjected to up to 35G's of force and violent air pressure changes, are fascinating and show the bravery of those involved. Disney animation is used throughout and is quite unobtrusive, aimed at an adult level. This was serious stuff, not prepared just for kids.

But "Man in Space" is terrific viewing today even if you already know all that. Some of the giants of rocket development - Willy Ley, Wernher von Braun - explain and propose ideas that in 1955 must have seemed far-fetched. Von Braun boldly predicts that a passenger vehicle could be developed within ten years, or by 1965 (actually, it happened a few years before that). This was when they were barely past the V2 stage! Sounds awfully similar to something President John F. Kennedy later said about the Moon....

Of course, some of the ideas were later dropped due to practical necessity. Von Braun's large model rocket, for example, while looking eerily similar to current designs of the 21st Century, was far too ambitious for the technology of the day, and liquid fuel ultimately was replaced by solid fuel. However, one understands the precise logic off of which these pioneers were building. If anything, the "mistakes" show just how far in the future these guys were reaching. At that level, science begins to depend on imagination and theories as much as facts and experience. If you listen closely enough to von Braun, you can see in your mind the blueprint unfold for what actually happened over the next fifteen years. He, of course, was behind it all.

I can't watch this, though, without feeling kind of sad. Back then, they knew how to make hard science exciting and appealing. Manned space flight was not considered a luxury, but an imperative. This type of wonky documentary could appear in prime time on a popular program, and made cutting edge science accessible to everyone. Compare that to today, when popular science has turned inward, focusing on software designed to make people feel better, economic panaceas and unmanned probes at the expense of grand adventures such as "the conquest of space." It would be so nice to get some of that buccaneering spirit back.

Bandwagon: The Series (2010–2011)

Fabulously Independent and Free Spirited Look at Hollywood

[10/10 · 13 January 2012]

This continuation of Emma Caulfield's individualistic 2004 film "Bandwagon" follows up on the zany adventures of a fictionalized version of the life of its star. There is so much going on here that simply calling it "comic satire" doesn't do it justice. It is more a generalized look at the absurdities involved in getting ahead when you have to rely on other people to get there, the inherent drama of creative people, and how frustrating it can be when the best laid plans run amok. Imagine that you have gathered a group of your super-talented friends to create your own personal send-up of sheer human orneriness using your own status as a minor TV star for the starting point. That is "Bandwagon: The Series."

The film and this series blend together seamlessly. In fact, they chopped the film up into episodes and called that "Season 1" and this "Season 2." So, this is a review of both the film and the series, because they are really the same thing - well, it's a little confusing, but you get the point, hopefully. Anyway, our heroine, "Emma," is a brilliant and quirky Hollywood actress who, to her professional chagrin, is famous and perhaps a bit typecast solely due to a TV role she played years before. She has a fine reputation and connections all over town but hasn't yet quite scaled that wall to the "A" list. So, looking to raise her own profile as much as anything else, she embarks on a Quixotic adventure to show how much she "cares." Rather than adopting an African orphan or whatever else the "A" list types are doing these days, Emma instead decided to be creative by charitably advancing the career of one "Tubie" (an outstanding Karri Bowman, who also directs). Tubie is a mentally challenged waitress with acting aspirations who just happens to serve Emma lunch one day. This plays out in decidedly unexpected and explosive ways which bring out the best - and worst - in everybody involved.

There are wacky high concept - creation of a "Ghetto Glee" TV show - and low concept - traumatized after getting turned down for a film role due to her age, Emma goes to a pet store and does something, um, dramatic - ideas throughout. Both the movie and the series end with pie-in-the-face type moments of revelations of sheer comic horror that give everyone a chance to let loose with emotional tsunamis of acting bravado. But you will probably be drawn in even by the mundane aspects of Hollywood life shown, such as the intricate politics behind planning a party or casting a show (both proved as equally vital to a career).

Tracie Thoms is a highlight as actress friend Tracie who finds out not once but twice that relying on other actors for career advice or advancement can be a double-edged sword. Sheilynn Wactor has some nice moments as Tracie's sassy sidekick. Look for occasional uncredited cameos by some of Emma's real-life "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" friends such as the legendary Joss Whedon and Tom Lenk. My only very minor quibbles are that the pace drags a bit whenever the ever-scheming Emma is absent for very long and that the episodes are much too brief. This obviously was done on a shoe-string budget, but that lends charm in a cinema verité kind of way.

A decided triumph by the hugely creative but sadly under-exposed Ms. Caulfield and her entire team. This showcases just how much talent lies bubbling under the surface in the film industry just waiting for the right moment to be recognized.

Star Trek: Patterns of Force (1968) Season 2, Episode 21

Breathtaking Lead Performances

[10/10 · 5 July 2011]

Science fiction is usually about the present or the recent past. Fanciful new technologies are used, and mis-used, just as real ones have been exploited in the real world, setting up moral paradigms for our heroes to resolve correctly this time. Setting a story on some alien world and changing the names of the players usually doesn't hide the underlying message to anyone mindful of the historical parallels.

"Patterns of Force" follows in this tradition, though it takes the somewhat unusual route of transplanting real situations of Earth's past to the requisite alien world. Skirting the risk of taking the easy route and simply condemning the unredeemable, making the lesson a bit too didactic, the episode instead veers in another direction entirely and becomes a wonderful critique and examination of enduring human nature and frailty.

The Starship Enterprise, lead by the redoubtable Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner), is looking for lost historian John Gill (a barely-there David Brian) when it is fired upon by a missile from a planet that shouldn't have that capability. Kirk and his Vulcan sidekick Spock (Leonard Nimoy) beam down to investigate. In rapid sequence, they find out that the planet is controlled by real, honest-to-goodness Nazis, are captured and almost killed, and then find themselves in cahoots with an active resistance movement.

So, we have the set-up, that this is going to be an examination of bad, bad Naziism, right? Well, perhaps, but that is not the episode's real target. Wisely taking the brutality and illogic of Naziism for granted, instead, our heroes use that system's inherent weakness against it as they retain focus and search for the lost Gill.

Valora Noland, born the day after Pearl Harbor to parents who had fled Wiesbaden after Kristalnacht, and named after a speech by Winston Churchill, reportedly (understandably) hated playing a Nazi figure. However, she is the episode's blazing star. She plays Daras, a Nazi propaganda hero. However, is she really a Nazi, or something else? That answer is provided quickly, and emphatically, and thereafter Daras becomes more of a meditation on the media than anything political. Watch her preen as Kirk holds a camera in her face, and flounce up the stairs of the Nazi headquarters as if going up the red carpet at the Academy Awards (almost an inside joke there, I think). Valora knew how to act with her eyes, watch them closely throughout for some real emoting. Some may decry the lack of facial prosthetics and so forth (so painfully over-used in later incarnations of the series) to make the aliens look "different." However, this supposed negative turns into a major asset when it permits you to experience the emotions flitting across Valora's face as she first holds a gun on Kirk, then abruptly and surprisingly turns and fires at someone else. Strong females on Star Trek seldom fared well in the final analysis, but Daras defies that peril against all odds. A fabulous role played fabulously.

A fascinating aspect is the casual, almost backhanded slap taken at the reality of Naziism. For instance, the Nazis are shown to be infiltrated with the very people they were persecuting. Many real Nazis had, for example, Jewish origins, including perhaps Hitler himself, and they wasted a great deal of time investigating or justifying each others' phantom racial purity. This subtly supports the series' recurring message that we are all morally interchangeable and thus responsible for our moral choices. The absurd use of physiognomy to categorize and denigrate is completely sent up when arch-villain Malakon (Skip Homeier, in one of his several awesome guest star turns in the original series) pompously derides the smartest man on the planet (Spock) for his "low forehead, denoting stupidity." But the target is much wider than simply an indefensible political system and its self-serving justifications. The ending takes a sharp jab at modern media in general as being simply a tool to be mis-used even with the best of intentions. Daras is hailed for the cameras as a great hero (again) despite the fact that everyone in the room knows that she indeed may be a hero, but certainly not for the reasons the media will state.

The episode is about Nazis, yes, but that is just the launching pad for the real insights. Everyone in the cast gives a rousing performance, and I wouldn't be surprised if they felt something personal about the entire experience. This wasn't the only time TOS Star Trek mentioned Nazis (see "The City on the Edge of Forever,") and its treatment of them is extremely honest and, dare I say it, even-handed as a sort of aberration that somehow crept out of the Id's cage. Some will decry this episode as politically incorrect and the notion that anyone at any time could fancy Naziism as "efficient" as completely insane, but it certainly is possible that some future (and possibly wacky or senile, we learn absolutely nothing about the man) historian could completely misread history. And that reveals another point to this tale, the danger of misreading history from a distant vantage point. Never forget.... Human nature and enduring reality is the larger target, one that is hit dead center by a stellar cast and script.

The Atomic Cafe (1982)

Cold War Paranoia

[5/10 · 22 March 2011]

If you are considering watching this one, be alert to the fact that it is a documentary composed virtually entirely of old black and white news clips and civil defense films. Anything you find in it - humor, dread, amazement - you will be supplying yourself.

As with any documentary, choices have been made as to what to include. They are meant to guide us in a particular direction. That is inevitable, and not a failing of this particular piece. If it did not have a point of view, it would be dreadfully dull. Your particular reaction, though, will depend on your pre-existing mindset.

So, the film is loaded with clips that make people of the past look preposterous. Soldiers are seen staring down nuclear blasts, authorities are shown giving misinformation, and bomb shelters provoke a storm of confused political messages (they may keep you safe, says the good Reverend, but don't let in that lonely stranger if it might compromise you!). Schmaltzy tunes of the past that treat the subject casually are given the "Let them eat cake" treatment, as in, how DARE anyone treat this SERIOUS threat lightly. The film is actually quite moralistic in a backhanded sort of way, in a Jonathan Edwards "enough of this frivolity, get down on your KNEES and fear the bomb" manner.

The documentary over-reaches, however. This was brought out in 1982, and clearly was catering to fears brought about by Ronald Reagan's 1980 election. He was seen by many of his opponents as a dangerous cowboy just itching to blow up the world. Crazy to think that now, of course, given the fact that he did not blow up the world the first, second, or hundredth chance that he had, but that was the mantra. The images depicted are all from the mid-1940s to the early 1960s, but they even manage to work in a quick shot of actor Reagan himself from those years.

If you want to be smug, as the filmmakers are banking on, and react, as they wish, with "weren't they all such idiots," well, fine. But consider this: at one point in the film, someone is asked how far you would have to be to be safe from a nuclear blast. "Twelve miles," he responds grimly. Then, apparently as the "sane" response, someone else is shown saying even more grimly that you basically would have to be on Pluto to be safe.

Sounds awfully familiar. In 2011, the Japanese government said that to be safe from the Fukushima meltdown, you needed to be, what a coincidence, twelve miles away. Meanwhile, the Americans said you had to be much further away. It's so much easier to sit back and laugh at people thirty years later, isn't it.

There is a lot of just plain odd stuff. Richard Nixon, at the depths of infamy at the time of this film, is practically the film's star (heavy?), even though his connection to anything nuclear throughout is forced and tangential (his Kitchen Debate with Khruschev is included just to give him some more negative air time). Just illustrates conclusively the political orientation of the film.

There are some surprises. Lloyd Bentsen, later Democratic Party darling, is shown stridently supporting the use of nuclear bombs in Korea (one shudders that this actual mad bomber almost became Vice President and, later, Secretary of Defense). President Eisenhower, though, is shown as a very thoughtful man who apparently appreciates the dangers at hand.

Some scenes are shown to make fun of the "stay inside, duck and cover" advice. Close the windows to protect yourself. So hilarious, who could survive a radiation scenario, right? Well, that is exactly what the residents of Japan are being told to do right this minute. Hahaha, so funny. But doing simple things like that are, in fact, what people are still advised to do if they wish to increase their odds of surviving a nuclear attack. Under the right conditions, say a large enough distance from a blast, it quite actually could save your life. But so much easier to laugh at the notion that closing a window will deter the effects of a hydrogen bomb.

Of course, bombs in those days were much, much less powerful than they are today or, for that matter, were in 1982. Some of the advice given in the 1950s that was appropriate for that time obviously is outdated. But easy to make fun of people then based on what we face now, isn't it?

Those were the early days of educating people about nuclear events, and there was a lot of misinformation, hyperbole, guess-work and so forth, all given the wise-guy send-up of the malicious tool out to make fun of people. The anti-Soviet attitudes are widely ridiculed, and, given that all-important hindsight, rightly so. And certainly, the complacent idea that nuclear wars are somehow OK is the film-makers' real target, and who is going to deny that (well, maybe Lloyd Bentsen if he were still around). The filmmakers are stacking the deck just a might too heavily against people of the past who sincerely were groping for answers before it just became a fool's "common knowledge" that there is no surviving radiation and you are "better off" just running outside and standing out in the open to hasten your doom if the worst happens.

Just all right as a documentary. Obviously, widely missed the mark with me as either an exercise in comedy or satire. More interesting as insight into the evident cold war paranoia of those who made the film (and their sad, misguided fear of Reagan) than as any kind of insight into the times depicted.

Alfie (2004)

Fantasy Fulfillment Time for Women

[6/10 · 28 December 2010]

This is a clever little film, intricately designed to appeal, I think, to certain women. It works so well on so many levels as a chick flick that one is left wondering, at the end, why it was so uninspiring even on that level. But, for me at least, that was the bottom line - a gorgeous film, full of gorgeous models, that ultimately caters only to the eyes and not the head.

Jude Law is magnificent, perfectly cast (for the burden placed on him here, at least) as the ultimate chick magnet. Boyish, winning smile, perfectly composed at all times, handsome as a male model. His menial job doesn't matter in this fantasy world, all that counts are his classically good looks, that's his ticket. A very stereotypically feminine sensibility, if you will, as I don't think many of us know of men in our own lives who can get along like that - that is more a given of the female of the species. You almost half believe, while he rides around (beautifully shot) Manhattan on his adorable little moped, that female models actually do compose the entire sidewalk population. Naturally, they have nothing else to do but turn from whatever they are doing so they can gaze on Alfie's awesomeness. Here's a thought - put a female model on a cute little moped cruising Manhattan and that might actually be realistic.

Which leads me to my main point. The whole thrust of this film is that Alfie is meant to be seen from a womanly perspective. It is the female gaze they are pandering to, not the standard male gaze. That's the trick - switch everyone's gender, and suddenly the light switches on. The women in the audience are meant to put themselves in Alfie's shoes. Once that is accomplished, the whole thing makes perfect sense and serves as a Nice Moral Lesson.

Well, for sure. But the picture only gets lovelier. Alfie lives for women, and serves as their no-questions-asked lover of the moment. He fatally supposes that romance/sex/love has no consequences, but - egad, shocker! - it does. Dropping women like flies after seducing them eventually catches up with him. Oh, my! So, we have the perfect set-up to comfort every woman: Mr. Irresistible who callously breaks hearts before breakfast is actually weak like everyone else, and has feelings, and is susceptible to emotional dramas and manipulations. Well, ladies, we can't leave him blissful in his cruel ignorance! The film becomes a meditation on the comeuppance of somebody who is aggressively shallow, and whose fatal crime is that he knows how shallow he is the whole time and Just Doesn't Care. Criminal serial feelings offender! It's all about the emotions, baby. Hurt peoples' feelings and you will rue the day.

Alfie takes his "girlfriend" for granted and loses her - and when of course he realizes how much he needed her, it's too late, she's with someone else who is just simply to die for. Isn't this every "mistreated" woman's fantasy? Heartlessly dump another one who's not worthy - and she summarizes his character a little too perfectly as she plays the martyr and pathetically leaves in the cold and rain (you better feel guilty now, boy!). His fantasy figure turns out to be a sophisticated much older woman (cough cough audience fantasy fulfillment cough cough), but she serves up to him what he had been serving up to others - wow, couldn't see THAT one coming. The big twist(s) at the end is hardly worth the wait, but perhaps some will see this as "deep." If so, it would be the only such moment in the film. "I took advantage of women and didn't give, only took, and that is a bad thing which leaves me a fancy-pants loser" - what Solomonic wisdom.

At heart, the moral of the film - if you want to dignify it as such - is that drifting through life as if it were a fast-food meal ultimately is unsatisfying. Fair enough. But the character of Alfie becomes uneven, set up as so insightful, perceptive and knowledgeable about so many things relating to women and relationships in order to seduce them, yet ultimately blind to the perfectly obvious consequences of his dark designs. Making the cultured Alfie appear simplistic at the end when he needs to be because finally he is on the receiving end is done in grotesquely ham-handed fashion. Suddenly, Alfie is shown to be so uneducated that he never learned how to pronounce the word "Aphrodite." Oh, you poor, uncouth loser. The perceptive fellow who has been giving us the (eventually tedious) running monologue throughout the film, shading delicate situations with extreme subtlety while he spins his evil (from a female perspective, natch) little webs turns out to be our inferior, hopelessly beneath us! Yay, now burn him at the stake!

It was a nice touch having Mick Jagger do the score. Someone behind the scenes had a good chuckle about that. Hope you didn't sprain your wrist patting yourself on the back! Hey, he sang backup on "You're So Vain," too, so this isn't the first time. If you want obvious, well, this will hit the spot.

I didn't like the film. It said nothing to me, can you guess? But it may make you feel good for a spell, waiting for little Mr. I'm So Vain to get it in the end (no, not THAT way). The saving grace is that "Alfie" is so full of beautiful people, and things, and situations that it is easy on the eyes. Plus, it doesn't require any thought, everything is s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t for you. You know, like A-p-h-r-o-d-i-t-e. Burger and fries with a diet coke! So, if you like Jude Law and all that jazz, well, give this one a whirl.

Casino (1995)

Tons of Atmosphere, Tons of Clichés

[7/10 · 19 November 2010]

Martin Scorcese is a film legend. No matter what anyone might say about any of his films, his reputation is unimpeachable. Even his misfires have terrific scenes. "Casino" isn't a misfire - far from it - but only manages to be a good film weighed down by the ponderous style and overly didactic expressionism that is Scorcese at his worst.

"Goodfellas" was a Scorcese classic. This isn't "Goodfellas," but it sure feels like a mediocre extension of it. For what it is, "Casino" is enjoyable. Unfortunately, one of the hurdles that lesser Scorcese films face is that they bring to mind his better work. This is especially a problem when one of his films uses similar themes and even actors from his classics. Here, we have Joe Pesci from "Goodfellas" doing his angry mobster shtick again, and Deniro also reprising his standard wise-guy turn. Further, we have crude hoodlums increasingly turning on each other, having mundane personal problems that cross over into their "work," and exhibiting increasingly bizarre behavior after starting out seemingly in complete control. Sound familiar? Well, it probably does if you've seen "Goodfellas" or many other, better Scorcese films.

Robert Deniro, who at times is brilliant and at times seems to be suppressing a smirk in his "love" scenes, overall is fine as a middle-level mob boss who mistakenly begins to believe he is the top dog. So, we have the age-old theme of the inevitable mistake of taking your actual bosses for granted. Throw in Joe Pesci as his old friend who reaches the same conclusion about himself, and watch events unfold. Anyone who's seen mob films stretching at least back to "The Godfather Part II" on down the line has to see this train racing down the tracks. No real surprises, standard decline-and-fall stuff relieved by the usual Scorcese flourishes which, alas, went over much better elsewhere.

Sharon Stone is the empty center of this film, despite the fact that it supposedly is about Deniro's character. As the antagonist out to smash Deniro's controlled world, she is set up as the biggest thing in Vegas. She has to be for her character to work. Unfortunately, but none of that comes across, at least it didn't to me. Not enough time was spent on her character to show why at first she was so popular (which is odd, considering how long this film goes on), so her inevitable decline doesn't strike the emotional chord it should. Reviewers like to say she deserved the Academy Award, but I don't see it. She does get numerous histrionic moments, but then leaves huge gaps in her devolution. Her character lacks continuity. Stone gives two performances, one as a reluctant bride (why?), and then one as an increasingly unhappy wife (again, why?). Admittedly, she does a good job of acting, but it all seems forced and like, well, acting. Her character didn't grab me.

The single most annoying aspect of this film is a self-indulgent Scorcese trademark that reached its nadir here and in "Gangs of New York." You may find it charming, or helpful, or entertaining, but to me it is downright distracting and needless. That is a banal historical (this is "semi-fictional" in the worst way) explanation and constant narration by the Deniro and Pesci characters which continues right to the end. A little of that works, but it gets way out of hand. The characters repetitiously "explain" things that don't need to be explained. For example, the narrator will say, "And then she hit bottom and blew her money on drugs and pimps," and we see Stone stumbling down a hallway, doing her mighty best to show herself "hitting bottom." "And when they found her body...." and she immediately falls down in the hallway, right on cue. Nice acting, Sharon! The technique is patronizing. It is as if Scorcese is directing the film toward people who are complete blank slates, and know nothing about people, or history, or motivations. But, in reality, the audience is not stupid. It can be trusted to draw the appropriate conclusions, given a story rather than a monologue with accompanying moving pictures. I think Scorcese forgets himself sometimes. I think most viewers would find thinking things through themselves more enjoyable.

In other words, skip the quasi-documentary stuff, and this would be a far superior film.

Despite my major quibbles, I enjoyed the film because it does transport you to another time and place, Vegas in the early '70s, before, as Deniro the narrator so unnecessarily (but characteristically) explains, "It became Disneyland." The fashions (Deniro sporting a gold lamé suit is a riot) alone are worth the time. Just try not to compare this film to true classics.

Strictly Sexual (2008)

Amber Benson Rocks

[7/10 · 17 May 2010]

I enjoyed this film. I especially liked Amber Benson as Donna, an aspiring screenwriter with serious esteem issues who makes no secret of her overpowering sexual appetite. She convinces her shy but successful roommate Christi Ann (Kristen Kerr) to pick up two gigolos downtown for some paid sex. The girls and guys pair up, have sex, then face the consequences in the morning and thereafter.

The set-up is silly and full of those little coincidences that are routine in these kinds of female-oriented relationship films. The two supposed gigolos are actually unemployed construction workers (female fantasy time) who need someone to pay their bar bill at the fancy hotel bar they chose to patronize (only in the movies), and the two wanton females (male fantasy time) are only too happy to oblige (ahem). Well, they have to meet somehow, right? If you can get past that silliness, things do pick up later.

Johann Urb (Joe) and Stevie Long (Stanny) are genial enough as the two buddies who luck out, but their characters are drawn simplistically. Urb plays Joe as a male model type (at one point he even gets a job offer as a model, one of the more believable moments in the film) in whose mouth butter wouldn't melt. Stanny is played as a crude lout who says thing while sober that you would have to be drunk to think are acceptable. Both guys are given dialog that sometimes rings true and sometimes doesn't, sometimes makes sense and sometimes doesn't.

There isn't any explicit sex shown, but some scenes are about as suggestive as you can get without crossing that line. Which isn't a bad thing, the sex scenes are essential to show the complex attractions involved. That's a pretty remarkable achievement, usually the sex in low budget films like this is gratuitous, but here it really isn't. Donna in particular has a lot of issues and gets closer to reality with her neuroses and sensitivities than the others, who are broad stereotypes. If as much care had been taken with the other characters, "Strictly Sexual" might have become a minor classic.

But, alas, along with Donna we have the shy, innocent girl who must learn about love from her sensitive, gentle and caring construction worker/male model Joe, and the other construction worker who takes the caveman routine way too far. Only in the final scene does Stanny get a chance to act like a human being, and unfortunately, that's too late.

Even with its flaws, I liked this one. An entertaining way to spend the evening, especially if you like Amber.

The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)

Uneven Film with Moments of Sheer Transcendence

[8/10 · 2 February 2010]

This film has gone in and out of fashion more often than the miniskirt. A triumph in the post-war period, it was virtually forgotten by the 1970s except by students of cinema. Recently, it has begun to get recognition as perhaps the most even-handed representation of soldiers' integration into post-war life ever made (and that most definitely includes films such as "The Deer Hunter.") I like it, but my overall evaluation is somewhere between those extremes.

The tale is a simple one. Three very different servicemen who have mustered out after World War II (The Big One!) fly home to their Midwest town and try to resume, or create, civilian lives. One has a disability, one has a cushy job waiting for him, and the other has nothing to go on but determination.

There are some good but unfortunately uneven performances. Fredric March won the Best Actor Oscar for playing an old Sergeant who returns to his job at the local bank. Personally, I think Jimmy Stewart deserved it for "It's a Wonderful Life," which also deserved the Best Picture Award, but clearly this film touched a nerve with the post-war audience. As I said, it was fashionable. March has one fantastic scene, a humorous speech that brought to mind somewhat similar incident involving real WWII hero Pappy Boyington, and otherwise is solid but unspectacular.

I am going against the grain here, but I thought that Myrna Loy, who played March's wife, was justly ignored by the Academy. I detected barely a hint of warmth from her. In fact, I kept thinking she was going to slap Frederic March for annoying her. She practically grimaced every time they were together. Something was definitely missing there, in her forced smiles and her air of tolerance rather than joyfulness. I think all this nonsense about her being "the perfect wife" is correct only if you think a passionless 1950s homemaker is your ideal. You may disagree with that, but the Academy voters apparently did not. She is a major problem with this film, terribly miscast.

Dana Andrews as a former soda jerk who became a war hero, then winds up behind the counter again, is amazing. He is saddled with a wife who evidently married him right before he left for the war for all the wrong reasons, and his future looks bleak. But then he chances upon March's daughter Peggy (Teresa Wright, in a fantastic turn), and fireworks explode. Both are great, but then comes that unevenness again that pervades this film. Some moments of pure soap opera intrude, punctuated by the all-time classic line, "I'm going to bust that marriage up!" The romance is uplifting and does mirror a common condition after the war, that of returning servicemen finding love upon their return.

Speaking of uplifting, now we come to Harold Russell. He has a naturalistic quality to his acting, or is it non-acting, that rings just as true today as it no doubt did then. Taking a no-nonsense approach to his situation, he is an inspiration. His best scene, one of the best in all cinema, is when he brings the girl who likes him up to his bedroom to show her the truth of his condition. "I'm lucky, I still have my elbows unlike some of the boys." Truly great stuff.

The film has some moments that soar. It also has some moments that belong in the afternoon soaps. Take the good with the bad and see this one for the high points.

Santa Fe Trail (1940)

John Brown's Body....

[9/10 · 29 January 2010]

This is an odd film for several reasons. First, the title has nothing to do with the story. Second, the politics are extremely murky, to the point of being deliberately obscure but still unmistakable and, to the modern eye, eyebrow-raising. Third, it features a strange meeting between two future US Presidents. It is perhaps the weirdest Western Hollywood ever made, but, unlike, say, 1970s Westerns that strove mightily to be revisionist and different, this one is unintentionally strange.

Errol Flynn stars as JEB Stuart, part of a cadre of West Point graduates who (supposedly) were great friends but who later formed the military leaders of both sides of the Civil War. They politely spar over women, but not so politely against a messianic wild-eyed fanatic who is determined to upset everybody's comfortable life because of his obsession. That madman is one John Brown, who ultimately takes his fight from the wilds of Kansas to the neighborhood of Washington, D.C. The story ultimately devolves into a quite accurate depiction of the John Brown raid on Harper's Ferry and its resolution (Brown's hanging).

Anyway, the only reason this film is titled "Santa Fe Trail" is because some of the events in the film take place near that trail's beginning. But that's not the oddest thing about it, not by far. This film takes the extremely politically incorrect position of making abolitionist Brown into the Osama bin Laden of his day and a group of (later Confederate) officers who captured him (Robert E. Lee, JEB Stuart) into the heroes. It doesn't come straight out in the open and say that the Civil War was a bad thing, but it comes darn close. One of the odder scenes is when a former slave tells Stuart, "If this is freedom, I don't want it." Now, try putting THAT into a modern film. Well, you could try, I suppose....

The strange sympathy shown for the South and its leaders and its cause isn't the end of the oddities, though. There is a bizarre scene where future General Custer, played by Ronald Reagan (one of Flynn's signature roles was Custer in "They Died with their Boots On," adding to the confusion), dances with a pretty young lady and then is taken to meet her dad - future President Abraham Lincoln! They have a polite exchange, then Ron goes off to fight the evil guy who wants to free the slaves. So one actor playing a future President (this is set two years before Lincoln took office) has a strange and completely unnecessary scene with another actor who actually became President (forty years after this film was made). And the actor who played the strangely shaven Lincoln is completely uncredited anywhere, along with the daughter. Of course, Lincoln didn't even HAVE a daughter! It's all a bit odd and makes my head hurt. One of those strange moments in film history that nobody even noticed but is full of resonance now.

Strange politics aside and oddities forgotten for the moment, this is a rousing war drama about some crucial events that otherwise are completely overlooked by Hollywood, probably because of the weird politics involved. The good guys later became the bad guys, and then revered figures in the history books, while the bad guy's cause was completely redeemed by history, so was he really a bad guy at all? Raymond Massey completely steals the film as Brown, playing the character as a complete and utter fanatic with delusions of Godhood and the air of a latter-day Moses freeing the slaves. One of the most mesmerizing performances I've ever seen. It just happens also to be completely confusing as any kind of political statement or interpretation of the man himself and what he stood for.

So, OK, it's impossible to put the weirdness aside if you know the history at all. But well worth catching in any event.

The Prize (1963)

Stockholm in the Sunshine

[8/10 · 27 January 2010]

Stockholm never looked lovelier than in this film. Seldom have I seen a city made to look as beautiful and colorful as they managed to do here. While introducing farcical elements to replace the heavy romance in the original, director Mark Robson and screenwriter Ernest Lehman virtually remake Alfred Hitchcock's (and Lehman's) "North By Northwest" in a way that continually pokes fun at itself.

Paul Newman stars as effete and boozing American writer Andrew Craig, who somehow managed to win a Nobel Prize for Literature despite not having written anything but cheap detective novels for years. Arriving in Stockholm to attend the ceremony, he is shepherded during his stay by government representative Inger Andersson (the lovely Elke Sommer). He meets several other prize recipients, each of whom has some dysfunctional relationship with either a fellow prize winner or someone else close. Then there is one particular prize winner, Dr. Max Stratman (Edward G. Robinson), who is the subject of a sinister Cold-War plot....

Newman lounges through most of the film affecting a now-it's-there, now-it's-not effete speaking voice that contrasts sharply with his pretensions to being a lady killer. Being a detective-story writer, he quickly senses from some subtle facts that something is amiss with Dr. Stratman and his perky niece (Diane Baker). He spends the remainder of the film gallivanting around Stockholm solving the mystery while contending with assorted colorful locals.

Anyway, that's the set-up. There are gaping plot holes (at one point, Craig receives a mysterious and crucial phone call from someone for no apparent reason) and jokey scenes with no purpose (Lehman sends up a similar scene in "North By Northwest" by having Craig interrupt a Nudist Convention in order to escape bumbling killers). More so than usual in these types of films, the crooks seem to linger around practically inviting the hero to figure things out in time. The chief hired killer is a dead ringer for Martin Landau, who must have been unavailable, while Leo G. Carroll reprises his role as an authority figure to eliminate all confusion about what is going on. The real problem with the script is that it can't make up its mind to be a complete farce, so one minute Newman is stumbling around rather pathetically, the next he is outwitting professional killers on a cargo ship a la James Bond. As a mystery, the film is rather silly, and as a farce it pulls its punches, so those are not the reasons to see it.

But Stockholm is glorious! There is an irreverent live-and-let-live attitude throughout that plays on the stereotype that anything goes in hip Sweden, and Elke is the embodiment of that wistful notion. Newman gets off occasional one-liners of the type that Sean Connery did much better in the following year's "Goldfinger" but are amusing in their own right. Worth catching for a trip to a fabulous place that never really existed.

Mission to Moscow (1943)

An Astonishing Film

[5/10 · 21 January 2010]

This is one of the most astonishing films I've ever seen, not because of the content, but because of what it reveals about its subject. That would be one Joseph E. Davies, chosen by President Franklin Roosevelt before World War II as one of his personal ambassadors to the Soviet Union. FDR believed in the personal touch when dealing with other countries, so he would send his untrained cronies overseas for little fact-finding missions. Wendell Wilkie, for instance, went on one such mission at the height of the war. This film shows how well this tactic worked out.

This film records Davies' grand tour of Europe in the crucial 1937-1939 period. It opens with the real Davies giving a heartfelt (and very long) speech in which he describes himself as God-fearing and so forth (i.e., not a Communist). Then we segue to the actor playing Davies, Walter Huston, and follow his increasingly odd journey in which he talks to all the movers and shakers in Europe at the time (with the notable exception of Hitler, who refused to see him because he was "so busy," presumably planning his next invasion).

Now, this film was intended as a pure documentary of what Davies saw and learned. Davies himself obviously approved every single scene and every piece of dialog. That is what makes this film so astonishing.

Astonishing because Davies is revealed to be an absolute bumbler and inept fool who had no business touring Europe, much less representing the United States or having his opinions used to any purpose by the United States government. There are so many jaw-dropping moments that one almost begins to think this was a parody. But, alas, it was no parody, this is the actual sort of information that the US had about Europe on the eve of a war in which more than 20 million people died.

Davies laps up whatever fiction is served to him, and uses each morsel to regurgitate wrongheaded pronouncements about the state of the world. Virtually every conclusion he utters is based on information spoon-fed to him by people purposefully deceiving him. The truth about what was going on around him was discoverable, but he never bothers. As such, this film documents just how taken in Davies was by the Soviets, or put another way, how successful the Soviets were in snookering the naive American.

Let's give a few examples. Davies makes a big deal about "finding out" that Soviet factories were being sabotaged by opponents to Stalin (generically referred to as Trotskyites). Conveniently, these "saboteurs" were rounded up during his stay and put on trial. When some of his associates start questioning what is really going on, Davies piously opines, "We'd all just better wait for the trial so we can learn the real facts." Ha! Innocent abroad indeed. Indoctrinated in the US legal system, which was actually designed to get at the truth of a matter, Davies obviously had no idea what a Soviet show trial was all about. Obviously, as proved later, it was all an elaborate set-up. Soviet Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky had become too big for his britches, and Stalin wanted him dead, so he concocted the whole story about sabotage for Davies' (and everyone else's) benefit. Davies sits there, lapping up every lying word of it, unquestioning and practically inert intellectually.

At another moment, Davies' security people worry that their quarters may be bugged. They want to check the place out. But no, Davies will have none of it. "Let's give them the benefit of the doubt," he decides. One physically gasps when seeing this. Yes, this is the guy I want representing American interests abroad.

There are all sorts of propaganda moments that are delightful in their naiveté. The Soviets obviously put on a real show of their military might for the stupid American, with some particularly nice flourishes. A big deal is made in the film of the fact that there are women soldiers, women paratroopers, women this and that. This must have been to give an appearance of some kind of monolithic quality to Soviet forces. Yet students of the war will search in vain for the exploits of these hordes of Amazon warriors. It was all a show, kind of like those given at the Bolshoi. Hermann Goering bragged about doing the same thing to foreign visitors, it was a fairly common tactic among sophisticated diplomats. Somebody with a penetrating mind might have seen through such shenanigans, but that was asking too much of Davies.

Anyway, the film is such a farce that it's fascinating. Stalin looks so pleased with himself after feeding Davies more lies, lighting his pipe and smirking. Now we realize he wasn't happy because he had found such a fine fellow. Instead, he would have been smirking because he realized he had found the ultimate sucker. FDR himself caused the West endless grief at Yalta because he acted similarly to Davies, just "giving them the benefit of the doubt" and so forth. Stalin is said to have thought little of this film, and it is painfully clear why. He must have been embarrassed at the sheer ridiculousness of it, his choreographed charade immortalized on celluloid. It's possible that observing the sheer stupidity of the West may have contributed to his thinking he had more in common with the decidedly not-naive Hitler, leading to the Nazi-Soviet pact mentioned in the film (and explained away by Davies as Stalin just protecting his country, yeah, I'll buy that for $100, Alex).

Worth watching for a hoot, and to see how a reputation can be gutted by a person's own hand. I enjoyed it, but it also is agonizing seeing how much a fool it makes Davies look.

It's a Date (1940)

Deanna Durbin Gets the Part

[7/10 · 13 January 2010]

This is a fine Deanna Durbin vehicle, but an uneven film. There are plenty of chances for Deanna to sing and be bubbly, enough to satisfy most fans, but the stars have to work overtime to keep what little drama exists moving until the inevitable resolution.

Deanna is fledgling actress Pamela Drake, daughter of major Broadway star Georgia (Kay Francis). She works in a small regional theater but unexpectedly gets the chance to star on Broadway herself. Seeking seclusion in order to prepare for her big break, she heads home to Hawaii to spend some time with her mother. On the ship, she meets pineapple tycoon John Arlen (Walter Pidgeon), who first woos her but then also becomes interested in mama. It turns out that Georgia also expects to get the part already offered to Pamela and also wants John. Who gets the part? More importantly for these types of films, who gets the man?

Durbin is amazing, as always, and really gets the chance to show what a child prodigy she was (though clearly becoming a young woman here). She sings several standards such as "Loch Lomond" and "Ave Maria" with her fine soprano voice, and shows maturity far, far beyond her years. If you aren't familiar with Durbin, be prepared to be dazzled by her talent. There's one fine bit where Deanna, trying to convince the big-time producers (including S.Z. Sakall doing his usual hammy bit) to hire her for their show, does several wildly different characterizations in rapid-fire succession which are all excellent. Great acting talent, great singing voice, prettier in a classic sense than Judy Garland, Deanna was the complete package.

Pidgeon is great also, but he is up against formidable competition in the acting department here. He exudes his usual avuncular charm, and actually has some dashing moments on the ship to Hawaii as he tries to woo Pamela. Later, though, he appears bewildered at times, despite supposedly being the one in charge. Kay Francis is the clear loser. She is completely outclassed by Durbin, and is clad in weird fashions such as turbans that make her look dowdy and out of place, especially in a Hawaiian setting. It is difficult to believe that Arlen would choose her over Pamela. Plus, she is given almost no chance to do anything but sit and wait for John and Pamela to decide things for her, so her character and motivations are murky.

Durbin gets to sing several times with her beautiful operatic voice, and she gets to emote repeatedly both as her own character and as the character she is playing within the story. Plus, she has several supremely Diva moments ("I am through with men!"), culminating in the glorious opportunity to stalk off in a huff, the battle won but the war lost. The reality, though, is that she is still just a kid playing in a grown-up world, a fight the real Deanna would be waging until she finally gave it all up and left films altogether later in that decade, hopefully for a happier life without the strain of constantly meeting her own and others' extraordinary expectations for herself.

Ignore the story, but don't ignore Deanna, a true star.

Salt of the Earth (1954)

A Fine Study in Human Dynamics

[8/10 · 29 December 2009]

This propaganda film - and that is what it is, and that is not meant as a slight, it is what it is - takes an amazingly even-handed approach to the events surrounding a long strike in New Mexico during the 1950s. The politics remain relevant today for union workers and so forth, but for the larger audience, it also is a superb study in real human dynamics. There are mildly annoying aspects put in for dramatic effect - the strikers' wives are portrayed as a bit too noble and confrontational at times, the company men a bit too evil, the miners themselves as a bit too helpless and uncaring - but this still is one of the best studies of real human reactions to a difficult situation.

It is inevitable that things break down into an us-versus-them battle, and that is the film's greatest weakness. Once the striking miners are prohibited by court order from picketing, the women all too willingly take their places. This causes all sorts of power shifts within families, portrayed well by the Quintero family played by Ramon Chacon and Rosaura Revueltas. So we get some healthy servings of "this is my life, see how you like it" from the women, causing the idle workers to re-examine their attitudes toward women and their jobs and their lives. Of course, there is the larger power imbalance between the striking workers and the mining company, summarized by Chacon's repeated observation that it is necessary to look at the "larger picture." The human dynamics spiral out of control to the point where it is unclear how Ramon Quintero really feels about developments, as he turns to drink and observes that the women "Won't listen to a man any more." But, of course, everything turns out fine in the end for the workers, as we all knew from the beginning it had to, after everyone has learned some hard lessons.

The feminist subplot, though, is interesting but essentially a sideshow, put aside immediately once the strike is won and the workers get what they really want. The meat of the story is the confrontation between the poor locals and the authorities. That the outcome remains in doubt until the end of the film is a testament to the skill and craft of the makers of this film, including numerous non-professional actors. There are clear implications of mass power, with the sheriff's men repeatedly stymied by the sheer numbers of the workers and their families. If you want to read "Communism" into that, well, that's a perfectly reasonable implication, though certainly not the only one.

The politics are clear, and there is no doubt about the motivations of those who made the film, but the message is kept as subtle as possible. There was no need to ban the film, that was sheer over-reaction. For what it is, you will probably not find a better examination of the human dynamics behind the struggle of workers for a better life.

Pocketful of Miracles (1961)

Colorful Fable That Suffers By Comparison

[6/10 · 29 December 2009]

This is a scene-by-scene remake by Frank Capra of his 1933 Depression-era classic "Lady for a Day." By itself, this is an enjoyable and supremely colorful tale of redemption and generosity. Unfortunately, it suffers by comparison with the original and plays as a dumbed-down version that has no soul.

Glenn Ford plays Dave the Dude, a flamboyant mobster who relies for his luck on Apple Annie, played by Bette Davis. Transformation-type roles are difficult to pull off, and this is not one of Davis' better turns. She doesn't inhabit the character as emotionally as May Robson did in the original. Once she "transforms" into a society lady, she loses the character completely and leaves all traces of the original Annie behind. Peter Falk is the real standout, playing Ford's sidekick Joy Boy who has a wisecrack at every turn and several funny bits early in the film (he virtually disappears midway through, and the film suffers noticeably.

Unlike in the original, the rest of the supporting cast is fairly dull, especially Ann-Margret as Louise. How they could make a young and vivacious Ann-Marget dull is beyond me, but they managed it. Sheldon Leonard is wasted as "Big Boss" Steve Darcey, and aging Edward Everett Horton should have been in the original, not the remake. Thomas Mitchell does OK as Judge Henry G. Blake, though Guy Kibbee set the standard in the original version. Several casting choices are just eccentric. Arthur O'Connell as a Spanish Count? He chews the scenery with gusto, and is a hoot to watch mangling a Spanish accent, but who came up with that winner?

Ford is the empty center of the film. He does not come across as a powerful mobster figure at all, and ultimately has to do a lot of arm-waving and vigorous gesturing to get people to do what he wants when all it should take is a look. Some of the characterizations are interesting in their own right, and the addition of vivid color makes this watchable, but except for Falk and the splendid color, everything in this version is inferior compared to the original. Yes, everything. Everything!

They kept the same dialog as in the original in the majority of the scenes, but sometimes it doesn't work because of different acting styles and mannerisms. Dialog fashioned to refer to actors' particular characteristics is retained despite the fact that there are different actors - I'm sorry, that is plain silly. The wit and originality of the original is replaced by style and flashy production values, and it doesn't work for me. A lesson in the pitfalls of doing remakes for no discernible reason except to "upgrade" the product.

Almost everyone involved in this project did much, much better work elsewhere. Worth viewing for the tale itself and the colorful atmosphere, but better off seeing the original instead.