elisereid-29666 Reviews

Cats (2019)

A wonderful film that failed to find its correct audience

[10/10 · 13 June 2023]

Before seeing Cats, I had heard all of the dreadful reviews and they made me laugh so much I wanted to see the movie for myself. A sidenote is that I get a kick out of watching bad movies, and often even find myself enjoying them in unironic ways.

When I finally saw this movie, I was dazzled. It reminded me of a surrealistic take on the classic MGM musicals of the 40s. And this is why most people hated it, in my opinion-because surrealism is not for everyone.

I, on the other hand, adore it. In my opinion, Fellini was at his best in the 70s, when most critics thought he'd gone off the deep end (I can't stand his neo-realistic works, but I love his later stuff like Casanova). Henry Jaglom is my favorite filmmaker of all time. I think Popeye was Robert Altman's best film. Caligula is a surrealistic masterpiece to me.

I mention these other works to give you an idea of where I stand on cinema. My opinions are likely unpopular with many audiences and critics, and films like the ones I love often fail to find their audiences. Cats is one of them.

So what was the ideal audience for this film? It should not appeal to Broadway fans, but rather to people like me that love when movies show a world distorted by surrealism.

Of course, surrealism, at its best, isn't about distorting the world-it's about showing the audience something about the real world that clarifies it for us, but in a way that we would never have thought of ourselves. That's what's magical about it, and that's what was magical, to me, about Cats.

Borat (2006)

An incredibly funny film-if you don't take it (or yourself) too seriously

[9/10 · 13 June 2023]

I'm almost ashamed to admit that I absolutely hated this film the first time I saw it, when it was released in theaters 17 years ago. At the time, I was a self-righteous 18-year-old that took herself and the world far too seriously.

What put me off the most about Borat was that it seemed to be celebrating the kind of guy Borat is-a misogynistic, anti-semitic, homophobic jerk. What's more is that most of the people he meets on his journey seem to be cut from the same cloth as he, and the film almost seemed to poke fun at those that were not. I was particularly offended by the scene where Borat stays at a B-and-B run by a nice, elderly, Jewish couple that treat him kindly and graciously. His treatment of them seemed too harsh for me, and what offended me was that the film seemed to take his side.

In retrospect, I cannot believe how blind I was, and how ignorant I was to blow off this movie so that I would not revisit it until so many years later. In the years since my initial viewing, I've grown more accustomed to and familiar with Cohen's style of comedy (especially his character Bruno). I'm not sure, but I think it was because I loved his later film of Bruno so much that I decided to give this one another shot.

What I failed to grasp on my initial viewing as an 18-year-old was that the movie is actually making fun of all those misogynistic jerks that Borat comes across on his journey. That they were real people that actually believed the things that Borat says, and that we, in the audience, are supposed to see them as villains rather than protagonists. In the vignette at the Jewish B-and-B, we are supposed to realize that Borat is so incredibly stupid for being afraid of these nice people, that his fears are groundless and hysterical. Other scenes, such as those with the frat boys, are supposed to grab us because it assumes we know that those boys are losers who get what they deserve by being exposed like this in a movie.

All-in-all, I'm so glad I gave Borat another chance, and if you misinterpreted it the way I did when you saw it, maybe you should stop taking yourself so seriously and re-think your attitudes a little. Laughter is the best medicine, especially for an illness such as a closed mind.

If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium (1969)

Enjoyable, but overall weighed down

[8/10 · 28 July 2022]

I was really looking forward to this movie. It's the third film by Mel Stuart I have seen, following Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (my all-time favorite movie) and I Love My...Wife (also on my favorites list). This film appeared to have all the ingredients of those films to make a great viewing experience, and I settled in for some entertainment.

Overall, I did enjoy it, but not as much as I was hoping to. I admit, it was something of a letdown after those two other sensational films, but then maybe my expectations were too high.

This film has a great cast, but unfortunately there are just too many characters to make a coherent narrative, and none of them are given the proper amount of time to develop so that we might relate to them. At times, I was even bored because I was so overwhelmed by the sheer weight of people in each scene.

So why did I rate this film eight stars out of ten? Because, despite its flaws, it was a very pleasant film overall. I liked it the way one might enjoy a meal at a fast food restaurant-enjoyable, satisfying, but forgotten soon after.

The big exception to my problems with the film was the ambiguous, bittersweet, wonderful ending. It was echoed by Stuart later in his 1970 classic I Love My...Wife. It's just a shame that the rest of the film didn't live up to the ending.

I Love My Wife (1970)

A joy and a surprise

[10/10 · 28 April 2022]

As Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is my all-time favorite movie, I, of course, eventually began to ask myself what other movies its director made. Much to my surprise, Mel Stuart had quite a range!

And much to my surprise, my loving this movie had nothing to do with my love for Willy Wonka, because, aside from a certain light touch, the two movies are nothing alike.

Elliott Gould plays a doctor that, on the surface, seems to have it all. He has a satisfying job, loves his kids, and has a pretty wife (Brenda Vaccaro, who has wonderful comic timing). Until, of course, he and the missus start to drift apart and he begins to have affairs. At this point in the movie, I thought my sympathy for the character would drift as well, but much to my surprise, I sympathized with him all the more because we see that deep at his heart, he is not a ladies' man, but a lost soul.

The editing by David Saxon (the same editor Stuart used in Willy Wonka) makes the story and characters all the more irreverent and funny, especially when stock footage is incorporated as punchlines to gags that could have just fizzled out. This completely caught me by surprise because, although I am well-acquainted with how important editing is to a movie, I had never seen a movie with a conventional story rise so far above its conventionality due to its editing.

At first, I found the sad, poignant ending unsatisfactory. But the more I thought about it, the more I loved it because it was better than a happy ending-it was true to the characters from the first frame to the last, and that is much more important. Nobody in the movie is really a bad guy, the characters just don't always get along, and this will ring true to a lot of people. This movie did not deserve its own obscurity.

(As a final bit of trivia, look for the moment where Gould reads Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to his kids! My guess is, Stuart knew he was going to make Willy Wonka at the time and put this in as an Easter Egg, but I just about jumped out of my chair when I saw this scene. It was also a perfect demonstration of the Gould character's love for his kids. He may not be perfect, but we never stray in our affection for him, because a man who cares for his kids is a hard man to hate...)

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994)

The kind of movie that makes you proud to be Queer and glad to be alive

[10/10 · 8 March 2022]

I must confess, I was not looking forward to this movie. As members of the LGBT community go, I am pretty straight. I don't have a trace of flamboyance about my Queerness, I've never been to a pride parade, and though I have been to a drag show, it was just the one time. Though if they appeal to you, more power to you, I say, but those things are not my cup of tea. But damned if I didn't smile more during this movie than I have at any other movie in recent memory.

Why did it appeal to me so much? I'm not sure, aside from the fantastic sense of humor, appealing characters, insightful script, gorgeous cinematography....oh, wait, did I answer my own question after saying that I couldn't? Crazy...

This is the most pathos-filled comedy I've ever seen since the days of Chaplin. I was drawn into the world of the central trio from the start because this movie, more than any other, captures the poignancy of being proud to be yourself in a world that is not always welcoming. The three leads project the joy of being authentic in a way that almost makes you wonder about the actors that played them and their true selves (no, the movie is not politically correct in the world of 2022 because a cis man plays a trans woman-something I object to in every other movie, but I was shocked at how little I cared about that by the film's end). We could all learn a lesson from these characters.

Furthermore, this is one of the few movies about a trans character that I have seen that allows the trans person to be a fully-fledged character, instead of just being shy and timid. Indeed, she gets some of the best lines in the whole picture, including an insult that shatters records for me in terms of making me laugh (I can't wait to use it myself someday!). Too many movies let their trans characters fall into stereotypes, but Bernadette is a whole person with a whole personality, and this alone made me love the movie.

It also doesn't pull any punches about what an intolerant world this can be for LGBT people. Or how it can feel to be slapped by that world. However, it also does not dwell on this, and when homophobic bullying sets in, the main characters (eventually) brush themselves off and carry on being who they are. Like Wile E. Coyote after a run-in with the Road Runner. (Why do they do it? They don't have much of a choice and they know it, so they choose to carry on with style).

Best Defense (1984)

I failed to see what all the fuss was about

[9/10 · 24 November 2021]

The fuss about this being a bad movie, I mean. Because I thought it was pretty damn good. Not fantastic, not a masterpiece, but worth the 94 minutes of my life all the same.

But what is interesting is, the reasons I liked it all had to do with Dudley Moore's performance and his side of the plot. The added scenes with Eddie Murphy seemed just like what they were-added scenes. Or was this because I was familiar with the problems surrounding the making of the film, going in? I dunno. But I kept finding myself wishing they'd cut back to the main story.

This "main story" by itself seems a tad empty and pointless on its own, but when you consider that large chunks of it were removed to make way for Eddie Murphy's reshoots, it makes more sense. The film would have lacked a climax and proper emotional resolution without either Murphy's footage or the original Moore footage that wound up on the cutting room floor. This seems to me to be two movies intercut with each other, with the important bits and pieces of both missing from the final cut, with the director hoping that the charisma and combined star power of Moore and Murphy would be enough to sell tickets.

I wouldn't know how talented Eddie Murphy is from this movie alone, because he only pays lip service to his gifts here. But Moore was equally talented as a comedian, and he shows a charisma here that makes me want to watch the film again to see what I missed. (His ramblings and body language during the "stakeout" scene in particular are not to be missed and worth the price of admission).

However much of a mistake I find it to be to have added Murphy's scenes to the movie, I must say the editing is splendid. An editor's contribution to a movie should never be undervalued, especially with a movie that had a troubled post-production period, such as this one. The pace was rapid and makes you at least smile at even the dumbest jokes (those that think a comedy only needs jokes don't know the first thing about it-to make an audience laugh, timing is everything, both from the performers as well as the editor).

So yeah, I thought the movie was pretty funny, and I would have loved to have seen the original version, before test audiences decided (stupidly) that Dudley Moore couldn't carry his own film. I fail to see how building up Moore's character and removing the Murphy subplot would have made the movie *worse*, at the very least....

Popeye (1980)

Popeye with a dose of surrealism

[10/10 · 3 September 2021]

My pervasive thought throughout Popeye was "I had no idea Fellini made a musical comedy about Popeye!" Indeed, I almost looked up the film in the middle on my phone to be sure it was Robert Altman that made it, because this film is so unlike what I expected that I was almost not sure what I was seeing.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, in Fellini's better works, each of the characters are in their own little world and talk *at* each other rather than *to* each other. This is the element of Fellini's surrealism that I saw the most of in Popeye, along with the strange set design and costumes that could have almost come from the same cloth (haha) as those in Fellini's Casanova. For a film that was at least partially shot on location, there is a strange artificiality to its visual style that, yes, makes perfect sense when you consider that what we're watching is a live-action cartoon.

But I digress. I've gone on and on about the technique of the film but I've yet to answer the bottom line question that any review should address which is, "is the movie any good?", and my answer to that is simply "Yes! Very much so!"

The late Robin Williams inhabits his role as Popeye as only he could have. Shelley Duvall nails the gravity-and-physics-defying nature of Olive Oyl as she appeared in the cartoons, and she does it with posture and body movement as opposed to special effects, which makes it all the more astonishing. The songs range from melodic and beautiful to almost spoken-word, and there is an operatic feel throughout.

But then, I grew up enjoying the Popeye cartoons, so I recognized that Altman and company also loved them and that his film was a loving tribute to them. Would somebody that disliked them (or was uninitiated to them) enjoy the film as much as I did? It's hard to say (though I suspect that many audiences didn't know what to make of it in 1980, given its reception), but I find it really hard to imagine anybody disliking a movie so doggone sincere as Robert Altman's Popeye.

Ruthless People (1986)

A feelgood comedy despite a morbid premise

[10/10 · 24 July 2021]

How on earth did I find myself smiling so broadly at the end of Ruthless People, a comedy with kidnapping, murder and blackmail at the center of an enormously complicated plot? I don't know, but I was very, very pleasantly surprised.

Let us begin with the kidnappers that set the story in motion. They are a married couple (Judge Reinhold and Helen Slater) that have been cheated by Danny DeVito's character, so they decide to kidnap his wife (Bette Midler in her best role and, believe it or not, who has a fantastic character arc with a character that could've been one dimensional). What they didn't count on is that DeVito was planning on murdering her anyway, and is overjoyed to have somebody else do it for him. The "kidnappers" have neither the aptitude nor the attitude for this line of work (Reinhold's day job is selling stereos, and one of the best joys in the movie is when he tries to rip off a potential buyer but can't bring himself to do it) and are at a loss as to what to do with their hostage.

In other words, there are strong shades of a grown-up version of O Henry's The Ransom of Red Chief in this premise, and that alone would have made it a great movie (I read that story in seventh grade, and it still makes me laugh every time I reread it). But the movie's inspiration doesn't end there. It throws in a mistress that actually hates DeVito's character and is planning to blackmail him, which turns into the most delightful farcical moments I've ever seen on the screen when that, too, gets bungled by her true boyfriend (the underrated Bill Pullman).

What I didn't count on was Midler's character's transformation, both physically as well as emotionally, when she refuses to be a pawn in a power game and makes the right choice of who to form an alliance with by the second half. I won't say anymore, because that would spoil a great viewing experience, just trust me that you will like it and probably wind up smiling as much as I did.

May I also add what a fantastic visual style this film has. Colors burst to life, the settings are wonderfully idiosyncratic, and the whole movie feels off-kilter in a good way, and it supports the framework of the picture. It turns what could've been a mean-spirited, unfunny, distasteful story into a hilarious, feelgood movie.

Yes, this is definitely a "feelgood" movie, and I can't remember the last time I felt so good at the end of a movie, where my attention had been held for the entire running time, I enjoyed myself, the right people were punished and rewarded (not to mention redeemed!), and I left this movie completely satisfied. So why deny yourself this experience? Go watch it for yourself.

Always (1985)

Sure to break your heart in all the right ways

[10/10 · 13 April 2021]

Unlike most movies about divorce, Always is not about hostility. While the leading couple argue at times in the movie, there is no doubt that they have great affection for each other throughout. But why are they getting a divorce, then?, you may ask. The movie refuses to give details about their conflict until close to the end, and even then we're left in the dark. All we see are their personalities and their chemistry, and this allows us not only to interpret the story as we see fit, but also to imagine ourselves in their shoes. And this is one of the few movies about a breakup that I've seen that even dares to spend most of its running time trying to convince us that the protagonists should stay together, and yet also suggests that everything will be ok even if they do not in the end, because unlike most movies, resolution of the plot doesn't require them to reconcile in the way we expect because we're watching an American movie about a marriage. There is so much more to a happy life than being in love, and we owe it to ourselves to find other ways to make life worthwhile, as Jaglom's character conveys in his final speech, which totally devastated me with its honesty, heartfeltedness and truth.

This film is insightful and funny in a way that only Henry Jaglom can produce, because he is one of the few American filmmakers alive today not bound by scripts. Jaglom understands that it is in the editing room, not the writer's-or even director's-chair that a movie really either reaches its full potential or becomes a fall-on-its-face disaster. He isn't afraid to cut scenes together in a way that break the theatrical rules that most movies feel obligated to follow, when they can convey a point better when pieced together in a sequence that simultaneously makes more and less sense.

Upon my first viewing of a Jaglom film (his 1990 masterpiece Eating), my first thought was "this isn't a movie, this is a *symphony*." Because it wasn't concerned with a plot, it was concerned with character, color, personality and emotion. I felt this again this evening upon watching Always, but even more so because the film is so constructed that the climax of the story is cut together in such a way that you don't feel like you're watching the climax of a movie, you feel like you're listening to the climax of a great work of classical music. Of course, by saying this I feel like I'm trying to describe color to a blind person, and I realize this will make no sense to people that have never seen one of his movies, but if you do see them, and try to accept them on their level, you may understand what I'm talking about.

Always also serves as a bridge between the two main periods of Jaglom's career, between his stream of consciousness, groundbreaking, provocative and (at times) devastatingly funny films of the 1970s and early 80s like Tracks, Sitting Ducks and A Safe Place, and his more recent, pseudo-documentary efforts like Babyfever, Venice/Venice and Eating. Always is a good compromise between the two types of movies in that it has the fantastic editing and storytelling techniques of the former and the dialogue-driven insight of the latter. In fact, I almost wish I'd begun watching his oeuvre with this movie, not only because it serves as a cross section of Henry's career, but because Always's theme (relationships) is his most universal of all the themes he's tackled. Not everyone can relate to having an eating disorder or a ticking biological clock, but most people can relate to being in love, and I was so pleased that Henry's film on the subject did it such justice.

A Safe Place (1971)

Jaglom's stream-of-consciousness masterpiece

[10/10 · 12 March 2021]

A Safe Place is the first film I've ever seen that understands how a disordered mind functions-or doesn't function, if you will. Other art films dabble in this sort of free-association, but they often do it in a parodic sort of way that-though often very funny-cheapens the effect. In this film, Jaglom takes seriously what it must be like to live inside the head of a person that few in the world will understand. Take for example the recurring scene where Jack Nicholson is talking to Tuesday Weld on her roof, and the way they are circling around each other. We in the audience become dizzy and disoriented, and we get a feel for how Nicholson is manipulating her, and this is conveyed visually while they are discussing something irrelevant to the point of the scene. It's a masterful piece of film. There are times in the movie when we're not sure what we're seeing or hearing, but that's the point-Jaglom thinks well enough of his audience to expect them to meet him halfway and bring our own interpretations to the grey areas of his story. Unfortunately, most audiences refuse to do so, and as a result they don't understand.

Those of us that do understand this movie-myself, for instance-fall in love with it because he captured a slice of our unique brain weather. For others, if they have the patience to try to see the world through somebody else's eyes, they get a glimpse of what it is like to be neurodivergent. Still others will just find it pretentious and will leave the film unimpressed because they fail to see what Jaglom accomplished with this film.

The bottom line is, a movie like this isn't going to be a hit because large numbers of audience members don't go to movies for insight. It's as simple as that. They go to movies to forget about their problems, not to better understand themselves or-heaven forbid!-those around them.

This movie also shows something that I wish was spoken about in the film critique world more-that movies are made in the editing room. I have a very hard time picturing A Safe Place as a script that would've caught the attention of any potential backers because its charm, sensitivity and strengths are in the way the movie is put together on film, not on the page. On the page you just have random dialogue and imagery that even the most visual-minded reader will fail to picture the way Jaglom intended. That's why scripts are so misleading with many of the best films.

To finish on a personal note, I was an amateur filmmaker myself throughout high school, and I made a short film about a disordered mind that was filmed largely through improv and, again, really made in the editing room. When it was shown at a student film festival, the judges praised how it was put together but said they failed to understand it. It made me step back and think "Gee, maybe I should've made the movie more accessible. Maybe nobody else in the world thinks enough like me to understand what I was trying to say." And then, fifteen years later, I saw A Safe Place apply many of the same techniques-which I didn't know anybody else had ever thought up!-and Jaglom, too, was told that his film wasn't accessible enough. All I know is, I understood it perfectly as a snapshot inside the mind of a person few people had-or will ever have-the patience to understand. People like I was as a teenager, indeed, people like I still am. And those people will eat up this movie.

Serendipity (2001)

An uplifting, escapist entertainment

[8/10 · 31 January 2021]

In a time period as fraught as the past year has been, it is not only refreshing to watch a movie where the characters have blind faith that things will work out in their favor (and they do), it is perhaps necessary. I left Serendipity with renewed hope for life, and it's hard for me to imagine anyone not cracking at least *one* smile in the entire 90 minutes of this film.

And what's especially interesting is, the world was in turmoil in 2001 when the movie came out too, which could explain why the film was not always reviewed kindly by critics of the day. Fear and nihilism ruled the day in the America of the fall of 2001. It was difficult to have optimism in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and it's difficult to have optimism right as I speak, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. And to get personal, it was difficult as hell for me to be optimistic the night I first saw this movie at age 17 in 2005...when it was shown in the psychiatric hospital I was in for suicidal ideation. But somehow, I was charmed enough to seek it out again 15 years later, when it made me smile again at a time when there was virtually nothing to smile about.

Is this a great movie? No, it isn't. Is this an important movie? No it isn't. Can it, for people that allow it to, make you smile when the world seems to be one tragedy after another? Yes, it most certainly can. And sometimes we need that.

Great Expectations (1946)

A joy and a surprise

[10/10 · 17 January 2021]

Capturing the feel of Dickens' prose is the most difficult thing to do in a film, but somehow Lean managed to do it perfectly here. The film is not 100 percent true to the book, but boy does it reflect its tone!

Lean's film made me laugh, cry, experience and live in a way that many filmmakers fail to do. I wasn't watching the movie, I was *in* the movie, albeit as an observer, but not once did I feel I wasn't involved with the characters.

The idiosyncratic characters that make Dickens such a joy to read burst with life in this film in a way I didn't think possible. In the early scenes, he also captured exactly how it feels to be a child belittled by indifferent or cruel adults. And all of this is accomplished in such a cinematic way that lets you forget it was based on a book. Many films based on great works of literature are laborious and tedious-this one makes adapting a book look like play, and that is the true sign of a great filmmaker.

The Exorcist III (1990)

Stops short of its incredible potential

[8/10 · 17 January 2021]

Two-thirds of the way through this movie, I was all set to give it a ten star rating and a glowing review, but then something happened. The movie went from being psychological and thrilling to silly and convoluted. I left The Exorcist III feeling ripped off, because I was *so* with the movie up to that point.

Of course, I was not surprised in the slightest, upon looking up the film on the IMDb after it was over, to learn that it had been meddled with in post-production. This explains a whole lot. I've always been of the opinion that you can make a good movie out of mediocre footage in the editing stage, but you can also make a terrible movie out of fantastic footage. Is this a terrible movie? No, it isn't, and I would recommend it for those who want to know what became of the characters after the end of the first Exorcist (don't get me started on the second one! Skip it).

Another flaw is that the characters are not given much time to develop, so we feel little weight from the drama. We feel that very little is at stake from the events of the film. And what weight the film did have, came from being familiar with the original movie, so anybody walking into this movie without having seen the first one (unlikely, but bear with me) will be totally mystified.

The movie is a mess, but it's something of a glorious mess that is probably worth seeing at least once, and it's a shining example of how a film can be ruined by test audiences.

Mac and Me (1988)

Underneath the cheese is a good movie

[8/10 · 9 January 2021]

Yes, it's corny. Yes, the product placement is blatant as hell. Yes, it was probably made to capitalize on E.T., which is totally cynical.

However...

There is a part of me that wants to defend this movie because unlike most movies about disabled kids, this one refuses to push an ableist narrative about his disability. The hero of this film is a kid in a wheelchair, but the plot doesn't really revolve around this aspect of him, nor does it end with the sickening idea that the only reason to feature a disabled character is so he can get up and walk again and be "like normal people" eventually. In this regard, Mac and Me was 30 years ahead of its time.

This is all of course to say nothing of the message this movie sends to non-disabled kids-which is simply that disability changes nothing about your character. And that's *such* a good, important message to send.

Also, I could see myself as a kid enjoying this movie in spite of its flaws (even though I first saw it as a teenager, and then only because I was a bad movie buff and had heard how awful it was). It's nowhere near the level of E.T., but it manages to be kind of fun and silly in its own way. And who says a movie has to be a deep, meaningful experience? What's wrong with escapism for its own sake? And if an escapist movie can send a good message about disability along the way, all the better.

The NeverEnding Story III (1994)

A good ending to the saga

[8/10 · 5 January 2021]

Say what you like about the sequels to The Neverending Story, but at least they do something that most movie sequels utterly fail to do. They dare to continue the story started in the original, rather than simply repeat the first story ad nauseum. This is to be expected to a degree, because the source material was a very long book, of which the first movie covered only the first half. The second movie, therefore, had material to work with without having to repeat the formula (though it was only very loosely based on the original source material). The third movie was another question, because the source material had been used up. This is why I did not have high hopes for this movie.

All the same, I waited over twenty-five years to see The Neverending Story III, because the first two movies were a major part of my childhood, as they were for many people. Upon finally sitting down to watch it today, and having heard all the reviews everywhere about how awful it was, I was surprised at how much better it was than I anticipated.

The movie is at its best when it is telling the story set in the real world about Bastian adjusting to his new family, and there are quite a few wonderful moments of truth in his relationship with his new sister. It tells a story that many kids that come from blended families can relate to, and I think they can also relate to wanting to escape into a magical book, as Bastian does throughout the series.

That said, I found much of the humor unfunny and labored. This is the film's weak spot, but overall I liked it better than the second movie. Though I loved it as a kid, the second movie did not age as well for me because the acting seems subpar in retrospect, especially Bastian and Atreyu (who is absent entirely from this second sequel). However, Bastian in this movie echoed the Bastian from the original, and very much seems like the same character, but older-unlike in the middle sequel, where he largely seems like a different person altogether.

Purists and people who grew up with the original movie will likely be disappointed, but I have a philosophy of walking into every movie with an open mind, and therefore, I tend to enjoy most movies more than the average critic-a characteristic that is sadly missing from most reviewers (and which should be a requirement).

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)

A sequel-remake that is even better than the original

[10/10 · 27 December 2020]

I remember so well how much we anticipated this movie. My sister and I watched its predecessor on video everyday for the whole year leading up to the release of this sequel, and we were not disappointed when we finally saw it. We thought it was the funniest movie ever made, because what little kid doesn't want to see other kids get revenge on grown-ups? It seems to me that any kid that says they don't want that in some way shape or form is lying.

It's been nearly 30 years since the exciting day we saw Home Alone 2 in theaters, and until yesterday I had not seen it in many years, even though we went through a phase of watching it on video (once it came out) almost as much as we watched the first one. But then, at that age I thought bathroom humor was funny too. My tastes have changed as I've grown up and I did not have high hopes for watching this movie again. How well could it possibly hold up, now that I've been exposed to so many great filmmakers and the likes of Fellini, Jaglom, Visconti and many others line my favorites list?

I was pleasantly surprised. So, so, so pleasantly surprised.

Much to my shock, I laughed almost as much as I did back in 1992, and not just at the slapstick. The way Kevin manipulates grown-ups to get what he wants is still hilarious because it is *almost* believable. The scene where he plays a gangster movie to trick the hotel concierge (Tim Curry) was a highlight in particular, especially now that I'm familiar with Curry and his other work. It's much too funny to spoil.

Would I have liked it as much if I hadn't had fond memories of seeing it as a kid so many years ago? I really think I would've, because I (unlike many of the critics of the day) remember what it was like to be a kid, but even if I didn't, watching idiots be humiliated is fun for someone of any age. It brings out a sense of justice not only for the kids that are belittled by adults, but for any adult who hates to see morons get the upper hand.

Bridesmaids (1989 TV Movie)

What a fantastic movie!

[10/10 · 7 December 2020]

Not only is this movie like an all-female version of The Big Chill, but this is the movie The Big Chill aspired to be but couldn't quite become! It's clear that this movie was made in light of the success of ensemble movies like Chill and St. Elmo's Fire that were big hits in the 80s, but this movie dares to break the pattern and be about something more than questions like "What happens when you grow up? Do our perspectives change? Do we change? Can our relationships started so many years ago hold up today?"

Don't get me wrong, those questions definitely can make for a great movie (and with Big Chill and St. Elmo's Fire, they did), but when you have a mixed-gender cast, it inevitably becomes more about sex than about the questions that sparked the concept in the first place. Bridesmaids makes a bold move with its four female central characters that have lives outside of their sex lives and aren't necessarily all about looking for men to partner up with. By the movie's end, each of the four women has faced and dealt with an issue that society didn't want them to address and each make the decision to not be the docile "ladies" that their culture expects of them.

The movie even deals with questions pertaining to rape in a way that foreshadowed the MeToo movement by over twenty-five years. Of course, being a product of its time, it fails to completely deal with the situation in a way that is considered appropriate over thirty years later, but at least it deals with the questions of consent and victim-blaming in a way that few 80s movies even tried to do appropriately. Most movies of the 80s looked at the issue of sex strictly through a male-dominated lens, and all-too-conveniently avoided these issues, so this is another aspect that made this film a big milestone for a made-for-TV movie in 1989.

I think it threatens a lot of male viewers to see women on screen that have things on their minds and things to do other than make room for a male partner. That's why a lot of these so-called "chick flicks" fail to connect at the box office-men are hesitant to go to one on a date, thus fewer couples go to see them. But women will love this movie. (The soundtrack is fantastic too! Any fan of 1960s rock and roll will also find much to enjoy).

Don't be fooled by this being an 80's made-for-TV movie, this is the ultimate film on female friendship. It deals with the bond women have in a way that is so seldom seen in movies (cinema, TV or otherwise) because this theme alienates male audiences. This movie is a tale of female friendship, as seen by the women themselves. Is it any wonder that the best movies about girlfriends are made by girls?

Love Story (1970)

The love story to end all love stories

[10/10 · 29 November 2020]

Watching Love Story is like taking a fun, enjoyable trip with some really close friends when you are aware ahead of time that the trip will end with the death of the person you value the most. This is because the death of the heroine is given away in the opening line of the movie, leaving no doubt on how the story will end. There is no Hollywood happy ending, there is not even a Hollywood happy beginning, but there is a hell of a Hollywood happy middle.

We begin this picture knowing that Jenny is going to die at the end, and this adds a poignancy to everything that follows. So, when she is diagnosed it isn't a shock anymore, though we've spent the intervening 70 minutes of the movie hoping we misunderstood the opening scene and that things really will turn out ok in the end. By then, we are deeply invested in the central characters and love them like old friends.

The movie isn't really about Jenny's death, it's about her life, and the film is a celebration of her life, as though it was a visual form of a well-done eulogy. It has been accused of being the emotional equivalent of a masturbatory fantasy, but I ask you, what is so bad about watching a movie to feel joy and sadness for fictional characters? To ride with their waves and enjoy an escapist experience? The world needed such a picture in 1970, and it still needs such a picture in 2020.

The Christine Jorgensen Story (1970)

A mixed-up film about a decidedly not-mixed-up human being

[7/10 · 29 November 2020]

The Christine Jorgensen Story has been labeled "campy" by many film buffs. Personally, I only found one brief scene (the dream sequence during the operation) to be of (unintentional) camp value, but I had other issues with the movie. The script is weak and cliched, full of corny as hell dialogue. But its sincerity keeps me from judging it too harshly, because doggone it, this movie is so sincere in its portrayal of gender dysphoria that it makes me want to overlook its faults. This is one of the best portrayals of gender dysphoria that I've ever seen on film, and it owes this virtue to the sensitivity of its director.

Rapper surely made better pictures, but in a way, his style and technique strengthen what could otherwise have been an exploitation piece. His technique hadn't changed since he made Now, Voyager in 1942, and this film could not be more of a 40s picture if it had been made in black-and-white. This is one of the few period pieces to be set in the middle of the twentieth century that actually plays as though it were a movie made in that part of history. (This, however, makes the small amount of nudity and swearing in the movie stick out like a sore thumb-the first time I saw this film, it was a censored print on TV, and in my opinion, it was much better because it had fewer elements that made it a jarring experience).

I also want to praise the film for being one of the few mainstream trans-themed films that I've seen that is actually *about* the trans character. Movies like Normal and The Danish Girl claimed to be about trans characters, but in reality they were all about the self-indulgent suffering of the family members of the trans character. Trans people have it bad enough without the message in these kinds of movies being "how DARE you transition, and do this to your family!" Because that's sure the message I think they're sending. Though The Christine Jorgensen Story touches on the suffering of her family, it at least has the guts to focus on Christine herself.

It is a shame, though, that they chose the wrong person to play her. Worse than that, they chose someone of the wrong gender to play her. Director Rapper himself later admitted that the movie's big fault was that he hired a man to play the title character rather than a woman, which was a pretty big admission on his part, given that he made that statement in the 1970s, before there was any talk about whether you should really hire a woman to play a trans woman.

It is also a shame that there is an inherent but subtle misogyny to the conception of the screenplay. Once Christine is living as a woman, the script rushes to give her a love interest, as though to say that the only thing a female character in a movie is good for is a romance, that she needs a man to complete her. The real Christine was an independent woman who did not need a man to complete her in any way-she was just happy to be herself. I wish the story had focused more on how happy she was to stop living a lie, because I think it would've made for a better movie, too.

But don't even get me started on the inherent homophobia in the script...

As You Like It (1936)

Fun Shakespeare film of a fun Shakespeare play

[10/10 · 18 November 2020]

Adapting Shakespeare is hard. Adapting a comic work of literature is hard. Adapting a comic Shakespeare work is a challenge of a tremendous magnitude, especially when you were limited to the technology of the 1930s and the staginess of the film technique of that period. It is like brushing your teeth with one bristle.

And yet...this may be my favorite of all the Shakespeare films I've seen. Which is no small feat because "As You Like It" is my favorite of Shakespeare's plays, so I'm downright picky about how it is adapted.

Yes, the play has been shortened. But the essence of it is there, and most of what people like about the play is intact. I did not feel like anything worthwhile was missing, even though it had been a while since I'd read the intact play.

The elements that make a good comedy are here as well, which is so hard to do when you're in the twentieth century doing a Shakespearian play. Most of all, it is that the performers (especially Bergner) look like they are enjoying themselves. Even if we don't get all the jokes and references that were understood in Shakespeare's day (or we can't understand the words because the 1930s soundtrack is muffled at times), we don't mind because the performers are having a good time and, by osmosis, so are we. It would have been so easy for less-talented performers to be so reverent to the material that they fail to understand that it is meant to be a comedy, and therefore spend their screentime memorizing lines rather than inhabiting their characters.

Making Shakespeare come alive in a movie is not easy, and I'll admit I did not have high hopes for this film. But I was won over by its unique charm, and it makes every farce ever made that came after look derivative.

Last Summer in the Hamptons (1995)

A treat for theatre buffs

[9/10 · 26 September 2020]

About a half-hour into Last Summer in the Hamptons, I was befuddled and couldn't follow the story anymore. And then I realized why I have such a hard time explaining the works of Henry Jaglom to people-his films aren't really about stories, they're about characters and experiences. Ours and theirs. This one didn't really get started until an hour into its running time, but once it did, boy did it take off! And it made me wish I'd paid more attention to the earlier parts of the film because that whole first hour served only to introduce us to these people. It seems at first that there are too many characters and we are intimidated by this onslaught of performers, but the movie eventually lets us know who we're supposed to be following and who is unimportant.

"These people" are a family of performers and other theatrical personnel. They've grown up that way-as one family member puts it, they grow up feeling they have no choice but to be involved in theatre because that's all they know and all they are surrounded by. They inhabit an alternate reality where we're never sure if they're playing a role or being themselves. And when you've spent time with actors and writers and directors, you know what I mean (I myself was an amateur filmmaker throughout my earlier school years and went to acting camps and lessons as a kid, and some of the characters in the movie could well be some of the instructors I had there). This is where Jaglom's improv-style filmmaking really comes into its own because we get the feeling we're watching more a stylish, candid snapshot of these actors than a "real movie". And that's not an insult to his work-many so-called "real movies" are totally dull and lifeless, but Jaglom's work is always bursting with life and energy. Even his detractors have to admit, he's not boring. (He also has a strange talent for casting himself as one of the less-appealing characters in many of his films-you have to admire a filmmaker that allows his own person to be seen in such a strangely negative light).

I have to admit, though, that I was uncomfortable with one storyline in particular. I won't spoil it for you, but it involves a relationship between a brother and sister. Though much of it goes unsaid, this part of the movie would've gone better unmade as it detracts and distracts from what could've otherwise been one of Jaglom's best. That said, it's still a marvelous work, and it is a step away from the kinds of films Jaglom had spent the last several years making, which were narratives intercut with documentary-like interview segments. Last Summer in the Hamptons is a straight narrative, so (as wonderful as I think those other films were, being accustomed to Jaglom's style) it is less likely to alienate first-time viewers who are not used to his way of filmmaking.

How to Be a Perfect Person in Just Three Days (1984 TV Movie)

One of the best movies from my childhood, and one of the best made-for-TV movies of any genre!

[10/10 · 15 September 2020]

I saw this for the first time in the first grade, when on a rainy day (they have more of those than you would imagine in South Florida!) we gathered in the school library to watch movies instead of having recess. Being a bullied klutz myself from the moment I started elementary school, I related to Milo's experiences and thought the movie was a lot of fun. I liked the movie so much I wanted to see it again so bad, but it would be years before I would track down another copy, but I eventually found one and it's been in my collection ever since.

The quality of the script, direction and performances are better than in most theatrical movies, and considering that this was a made-for-public television movie for kids from the early 80's, that's saying something! The film is loaded with interesting side characters like Milo's teacher Miss Sandwich and the three old ladies at the bus stop who are bothered by him. I especially liked the subplot about him trying to win his older brother's respect and affection, in spite of bad timing and bad judgment. This is a movie that goes above and beyond when it comes to establishing likable characters and interesting situations.

In the intervening years, I also read the book it was based on and thought that it, though funnier than the movie in a broad sense, didn't have quite the emotional impact. The third "lesson" differs between the book and the movie, and I have to say, I think the movie handles it better. In the book, Milo is directed to just sit and do absolutely nothing for twenty-four hours...this is to set up the point that being perfect is stupid and that it means doing nothing to avoid doing anything wrong. In the film, instead, the lesson is for him to do something he's never done before, and never thought he could do, while the point of "being perfect means doing nothing" is delivered at the end in passing. Sometimes establishing such a message in a brief manner is better than to belabor the point with a whole chapter of a book. I thought it was a much better idea for Milo to develop self-esteem by proving himself wrong by doing something he never thought he could. And for a kid with a history (even in first grade) of self-esteem issues, this was a liberating experience for me to see happen onscreen.

Joan Micklin Silver is quite a talented, relatively unknown director, but here she mastered character and the internal lives of children. She was to do this again nine years later in the wonderful Big Girls Don't Cry...They Get Even (AKA Stepkids). These are the only two films of hers I've seen (though I intend to see Chilly Scenes of Winter soon), but she is one of my favorite filmmakers of her generation because she has such an ear for convincing, emotional character development and a taste for fascinating characters. Even if the same script were used, this film-in the hands of a lesser director-would not be half as impactful without Silver's sense of timing and sympathetic direction.

In other words, don't be put off by this little gem by the fact that not only was it made for TV, it was made for PBS! It comes alive in a way that few mainstream theatrical movies do, and deserves to be seen.

Iceman (1984)

Incredible story and themes, but weak ending

[9/10 · 10 September 2020]

Iceman tells the story of a group of scientists who, quite accidentally, bring back to life a Neanderthal. The movie addresses the question of what could possibly be gained from bringing to life a 40,000 year old man, but more importantly the characters are left with the question "We've got him-what on Earth do we do next?"

Some of the scientists see Charlie (as they come to call the Neanderthal, based on his pronunciation of his name) as the door to immortality, since, after all, he was kept alive through all the years he was trapped inside a block of ice. But Shephard, the kindly, nerdy anthropologist on staff sees this as being against nature. "There are too many people in the world now," he counters their argument with.

He fights their decisions to perform medical procedures that study his body every step of the way and tries to make friends with Charlie instead. The film is full of wonderful moments of connection between the two of them, some happy, some angry. After all, if you were to wake up 40,000 years in the future where nobody speaks your language, wouldn't you be just a little upset? The most heartbreaking of these moments is when Charlie blames Shephard for the invasive poking and prodding the other scientists are doing, even though he is the last person to be blamed for it. He hints that he would even go so far as to allow himself to be killed rather than to continue to endure such abuse, and watch Shephard's face in this exchange. You'd think he was listening to his best friend go on a suicidal rant.

And yet...the movie doesn't quite go anywhere. Or at least not where I hoped it would. About two-thirds of the way through it stops being about exploration and discovery and starts being formulaic. There is even a final chase scene, which made me groan.

Was the subject matter too much for the filmmakers to handle? Did they think they had to transplant movie formulas into the story in order for audiences to relate to it? All in all, it's a shame because Iceman could have been one of the best movies ever made, a raw, emotional experience on par with Bergman (and for the scenes that reach for this, I still thought Iceman worthy of nine out of ten stars). Instead, it ends feeling unfinished and this audience member in particular was disappointed.

Moment by Moment (1978)

A film with few defenders and fewer fans that deserves a closer look

[9/10 · 30 August 2020]

When I was a teenager, I scoured bad movie review websites because A) I thought they were funny, and B) it was a way to discover movies I'd never heard of. Sometimes when I actually saw those movies, I agreed with the critics, but other times I thought they were way off. Sure, some bashed movies don't deserve good reviews, such as Monster a Go-Go (the worst movie ever made, in my opinion), but others were merely misunderstood. It's clear that when this movie came out, nobody understood what Jane Wagner was trying to say with Moment by Moment.

But if she's reading this today, I want her to know that I got it, and I think the movie is unjustly overlooked.

Most people are so put off by the early, awkward as hell encounters between Tomlin and Travolta that they immediately label the movie as a turkey. But what nobody seems to realize is, those scenes were *meant* to be awkward as hell. And as likeable as Strip (Travolta) seems, we understand why Trish (Tomlin) is put off by him-any woman can tell you (if you bother to listen) how uncomfortable strange men make her when they come on so strong. It's very rare that a movie shows you how the woman feels in such an encounter-too many movies show such behavior as "romantic" and that the woman actually likes such attention. Trish clearly doesn't like it for a long stretch of the movie, but she begins to trust Strip all the same, once she gets used to him, and she eventually sees him like the audience does.

The most telling line of dialogue is one that many people miss-when Trish's ex-husband picks a fight with her over her relationship with Strip, he asks how old he is, and Trish responds that he is about as old as the woman with whom her ex had the affair that ended their marriage. The ex responds that it's "worse" for Trish because she's a woman, and it's a double-standard that Trish can't understand. This message of the movie is underplayed because it would have only turned audiences further off to suggest that her relationship with Strip (which critics and audiences alike bashed) would be considered the same as many celebrated, mainstream movies with a middle aged leading man with a girlfriend in her twenties who finds him irresistible. This is a trope so common in American cinema that to see it reversed is a novelty, but one that audiences couldn't accept. This reflects the inherent sexism of many male viewers (whether they want to admit it or not) that only like movies with passive, un-intrusive heroines that don't speak their minds. And it is male ticket buyers that tend to determine whether or not a film is a success (note how many of the critics that hated Moment by Moment were men).

But Travolta is really the revelation here. Very few major movies with a hot actor of the time are willing to put him on the screen and allow him to be *truly* vulnerable, but this movie lets him do it, and the scenes where he describes his childhood are magically heartbreaking. The scene where he accuses Trish of using him for "cheap sex" also broke my heart. The idea of putting a young, male actor in a romantic movie and making him the vulnerable one (rather than his co-star), is very seldom seen in hit movies, and audiences weren't ready for that in 1978 in the wake of Saturday Night Fever and Grease (both of which featured Travolta as a "tough guy").

The awkwardness of the early scenes make this movie a hard sell to most people, and yes, some of the dialogue comes across as weird because we're so used to Hollywood movies where everybody speaks with wit, unnatural wit. But Moment by Moment has its heart in the right place, and didn't deserve to be branded a camp classic.

Destination Moonbase-Alpha (1978 TV Movie)

Great compilation film, but it left me "wanting more"

[9/10 · 14 August 2020]

Bad science does not always equal bad science fiction, and good science does not always equal good science fiction. Sometimes even mumbo-jumbo science makes good science fiction, as evidenced here (the opening crawl is nonsense in particular). Even such sci-fi classics as "Star Trek" and Star Wars suffer from bad science, but people overlook them because they have redeeming qualities-the philosophy of "Star Trek", the fun of Star Wars. Suspension of disbelief is a necessary trait for lovers of sci-fi and fantasy, and you'll need it for Destination Moonbase-Alpha

First, a little background. When I was seven, I was the ghost of my local Mom 'n Pop video store, and I recorded just about every movie that played on TV blindly, just to experience as many movies as I could and learn as much as I could. On one trip to my local video store in 1995, I found a used copy of Destination Moonbase-Alpha for sale, having never heard of "Space: 1999" or any of the stars and, since I had recently been exposed to the likes of Star Wars and the underrated The Black Hole, decided to give it a try (my folks bought it for me because it was cheap, and hey, at least I wasn't interested in R-rated movies!). I watched the first three minutes of it before the prehistoric VHS tape got chewed up, and, knowing nothing about tape repair at that age, foolishly got rid of it without having seen the rest. (I only years later realized how rare that tape was, since I scoured ebay for it for years, only to find that the only copies available were on Beta...)

Many years later, I saw the uncut episodes of "1999" this film was compiled from, primarily the pilot "Breakaway" and the two-part episode "The Bringers of Wonder." The former I found dull, nihilistic and flat. The latter was mostly good, but I found the slow-motion fight scenes on the surface of the moon silly, and it spoiled an otherwise good story. Also there were some ambiguities I thought should've been explored in the plot (but weren't) which I'll get to in a moment, but figured that was because they were constrained by the limitations of TV.

Just yesterday I finally saw all of Destination Moonbase-Alpha, to see how it compared to the TV episodes. The run time on the video box (and the IMDB) listed it as being shorter than the combined "Bringers of Wonder", and, knowing they also included pieces of "Breakaway", I wondered what they had cut out, and how good the editing was. I was pleased that they condensed the best and most watchable parts of "Breakaway" down to a four-minute prologue, and that "The Bringers of Wonder" was mostly left alone, save a few time-wasting moments deleted. (The run time on the box and the IMDB, according to my VCR counter, was incorrect-it is longer than 93 minutes).

I'd heard a lot about fans being disappointed in the second season of "Space: 1999", which puzzled me because I found "The Bringers of Wonder" (which was part of that season) far more interesting than "Breakaway", but then my taste tends to be different from most sci-fi fans. What did I like about it? It had a theme not altogether unlike the best of "Star Trek" (a theme which became especially interesting in the final scene), though I found it somewhat diluted by a conflicted script. The "friends" on the "rescue ship" were revealed as being villainous aliens far too soon-I thought it would've been much more effective had they been revealed in the scene where they are revealed to Commander Koenig. Also, when they are inevitably revealed to everyone else, the rest of the cast seemed to take the idea too lightly. They *were*, after all, so excited about the reunion with their loved ones and being returned to Earth, and they don't seem let down by the revelation at all. I don't know what this compilation could've fixed about this plot hole, but it was a fault in the original that I wish could've been remedied, along with the goofy slow-mo on the surface of the Moon (which seemed somewhat shorter in Destination Moonbase-Alpha, but I can't verify that claim without watching them side by side).

So yeah, it was faithful to the series, and combined the best of the two episodes into a coherent, very interesting movie. Of course, with the whole, uncut series on DVD now, Destination Moonbase-Alpha is little more than an oddity today, but I was pleased to see it in the format I wanted to see it in so bad when I was a kid.

(As an odd sidenote, the summary on the video box is totally wrong, because it provides the summary of "Breakaway" rather than "The Bringers of Wonder." All of the plot details provided in that summary are nowhere to be found in this film, since, as I mentioned, "Breakaway" had been condensed to a breathless four minute prologue for this film. This surprised me when I watched it, because, having read the video box when I was a kid and didn't get the chance to see the movie, it was certainly not what I was expecting, but then, it was much better...)