Change Your Image
eldontyrrell
Reviews
Angels Die Hard (1970)
Try to Find the Soundtrack
Mostly knew what I was in for, but tuned in anyway because I'm a sucker for seeing CA towns on film as they appeared back in the '70's.
Was proud of self for just *knowing* that that was Battlin' Bill Smith, though couldn't come up with his name at the time.
But the surprise takeaway here, as pointed out by other reviewers, is that the "soundtrack", as it were -- effectively a collection of songs playing over, and essentially unrelated to the events on the screen -- was really, *really* good.
Sadly, you may have to sit through the flick to hear it, or try to track it down separately. But by the time the film was on to the third or fourth song, with me struggling to stay awake besides, I remember thinking that each tune was either (a) catchy, in a quirky way, or (b) something I had never heard before, yet which was listenable *and* seemed to capture the "feel" of the times.
Probably way more time and effort spent on this than it was worth, but seriously, try it out and see if it's not a great musical backdrop to an otherwise, y'know, mediocre flick.
Marathon Man (1976)
More To It than Just Dentistry
Hello All,
Re-screened this one last night for the first time in a while, and was stricken by a thought. (BTW by now any mention of the dentistry scenes hardly qualifies as a spoiler, but wanted to play it safe...)
So much attention is paid to Olivier/Szell in those scenes that it makes it too easy to overlook the nuances written in for that character, and how well Olivier pulls them off. The character is a vastly different person, in vastly different environments throughout: when in "Uruguay", upon his meeting with Doc, in his interactions with Janeway, and throughout his undesired, but necessary plunge into the Jewish-dominated jewelry district.
The plot points that don't add up are well-mentioned here, and I won't disagree with those who find them too numerous. Of course, just as well-mentioned is that the overall feel *does* fit with the '70's-centric theme of government distrust ("Three Days of Condor", et. Al.) It's a thriller/mystery that doesn't spell it all out, not even at the end.
Long Way Up (2020)
Amazing how far you can go thru S. America...
...armed with only three words: "hola" and "muchas gracias"!
Although having a full support team and local/native stringers fluent in the language and culture, to grease the wheels everywhere they couldn't possibly by themselves, certainly helped.
Let's see: unprepared for cold, for routes, for local riding gospel. Did they *not know* they were taking this trip?
Issues arise: no problem! There'll be a local who can get things done, likely with the assistance of wads of cash (off-screen, natch). Broken down? Charter a plane! Visa issue? Become a "crew member"! Somehow did not know it is not great idea to ride at night? Buy a bus and horsewhip some locals into rebuilding it!
Best one: a major breakdown? Why, just have Harley Davidson fly a team of techs down to Costa Rica!
Yep, all the things that happen on a "typical" long-distance ride to "typical" people. R-I-I-I-I-G-H-T.
You can randomly select a "Ride Report" on the ADV Rider website and find something far more authentic, and probably more thrilling.
BTW I don't even dislike McGregor. But every time he waxed philosophic about the "beauty" or "authenticity" of some remote berg, and then I thought that this is with the fellas not having bothered to learn a *whit* of Spanish for their trip, walking down a street in the middle of nowhere sporting Harley garb and yelling "Hola" to random people? OMFG. I wonder how negative the reviews would be if a couple of Americans tried that.
Everywhere *I've* gone on long-distance trips, the people have "been nice" because I've tried to learn the language and to meet them on *their* turf, on *their* terms, not because I had a camera crew and interpreters right behind me.
Beautiful scenery. Very interesting snapshot of the (then-prototype) tech being put to use in the real world. But *boy*, what a load of pretentious garbage, lacking any credibility. "Reality" TV, indeed.
8 Million Ways to Die (1986)
More Than Adequate, but One Question
More than adequate, and at times enjoyable, for a purely random Amazon Prime screening.
Pluses: AFAICT good treatment of the subject of functional ("functional") alcoholism. Plot in general OK. Bridges hits all the right notes throughout.
Minuses: Some unevenness likely due to editing / Ashby departure as mentioned throughout this site. "Snow-cone negos" and warehouse scenes could have withstood cutting 2/3 or 3/4 length and still worked.
The question -- and among the many reasons I wish IMDB had never axed the "Forum" section -- how is it that nowhere can I learn the location of the mansion on the hill, with the funicular? Anybody know?
The Midnight Sky (2020)
Immerse Yourself in Their Struggles
No quibble with most of the "fact-based" complaints about this film, nor the motivations, or lack of same, for some of the decision-making out there in space. (And don't even get me started on "Sweet Caroline".) Still, if THAT is the primary take-away, then why even bother watching fictional works in the first place? Furthermore:
1) If you're going to base a lengthy slam regarding "the event" as being some sort of "immediate" climate-change disaster, then maybe watch the movie again for about five seconds: it seemed pretty clear that there were something like nuclear attacks on major cities across the globe, and that radiation was unstoppably spreading outward from those points.
(That's why, for instance, in the geography we are given, the birds were dying but the wolves were not. Not yet, anyway.)
2) "What happens when they get back to K-23", "did Sanchez and the pilot ever find their family", etc., etc., etc. Sure, good questions...but does absolutely everything have to be spelled out or spoon-fed?
How's this: in the aftermath of unimaginable, man-made cataclysm, the few remnants of humanity face the absolute, complete unknown.
And we, the viewers, are invited to try to imagine what that must mean.
There, that's the movie. Either enjoy the acting and exercise your mind on coming to grips with such an eventuality, or sit around counting up goof alerts.
La mala ordina (1972)
Well Worth a Watch
+1 on the other favorable reviews already here, for they've all touched upon what's worthwhile about the movie: rather decent writing, acting, and scenery for the genre and time. Car chase, foot chase and fist fights (obviously) pre-CGI, so bravo, players.
One thing I hadn't seen mentioned, however, and only a minor spoiler alert here: what a bunch of nincompoops are the stud-muffin, big-time hitters that "Cy" Cusack sends after our erstwhile hero!
Woody Strode isn't given much to do, other than to play straight-man and come to Henry Silva's aid, but boy, does Hank drop the ball or what? I don't mean the progressively louder dress shirts that he sports; hey, that's the era, and them's the style, not to mention that I kinda really *liked* one of them. But good grief -- he repeatedly throws away good money in exchange for bad info, wastes time staking out places that his target never visits, and even gets his pocket picked by a bunch of streetwalkers (subsequently needing Strode to save from getting an ass-whuppin' by their, uh, managers). He might as well have carried a picket sign saying "WE ARE ASSASSINS AND WE WANT TO KILL LUCA CANALI!"
That said, I'd definitely watch it again. Don't pay to do so, but by all means do not avoid, either.
Russian Roulette (1975)
You Can Do Far Worse...
...than to invest ninety minutes of viewing on this apparently little-known political/espionage work. (I'd likely have gone 7.5 out of 10 if possible, if 8 might be a bit much.)
Anyway, I wouldn't fully disagree with the more unfavorable reviews already posted here, and I will further grant that there are a few, some not-so-minor, loose plot threads that remain unanswered before curtain, and that the whole finale would never have gone down that way.
Still, overall, I conclude differently. The acting doesn't go overboard, and the writing is about as tight as is reasonably possible, while avoiding over-exposition. So if the plot isn't spoon-fed and in fact takes some time to become clear ("clear"), let's consider that Segal's character is probably in a bit over his head; sure, he's RCMP, but one suspects his billet is not *quite* at the "KGB assassination plot" level. He's been blindsided by the twists and trying to work it all out as he goes along...just like the audience is. I found that pretty enjoyable, actually...
And I appreciated the use of unassuming VFW-class drinkeries, city streets-cum-roller hockey rinks, and interchangeable neighborhood Chinese restaurants as settings, not glittering casinos and ivory tower CEO lairs and the banks of the Riviera. A good RCMP officer would likely have honed his craft on the former, and caught the latter only on the silver screen.
Again, you can do far worse. Don't pay to watch it, but don't avoid it either.
The Looking Glass War (1970)
By All Means Avoid,
I cannot believe I am driven to comment but I feel the need to warn others who may simply assume, as did I, that any film adapted from a le Carre cold war novel would be worth seeing.
If, as it has been said, le Carre wasn't happy with the Richard Burton adaptation of "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold", then I can't imagine he knew that this particular film was even *made* -- for he would have gone berserk.
Unless you wish to utterly waste ninety minutes of your life, steer completely clear of this horrifically tedious, disjointed, pointless, nearly unwatchable film.
The Hollywood Knights (1980)
One of the Worst Movies I've Ever Seen (Possible Spoilers? Who could give a damn?)
A soon to be ex-friend of mine lent me his DVD copy of this trash, and it may very well be that "Hollywood Knights" is the, repeat, the worst movie I have ever seen, ever. It is no more than a meaningless collection of unfunny vignettes that had to have been embarrassing to film for the poor people involved on both sides of the camera.
I cannot get over how bad either the writing, or the acting, or (at times) the writing *and* the acting was. To get it out of the way early, every single thing involving the cops was completely unfunny, terribly written, and terribly acted -- every single thing. The terrible writing is not the actors' fault, but the absolutely horrid acting is. Oh, and I forgot to remember to have tears come to my eyes whenever The Serious Moments were spewed across the screen, meaning the dude going to Veet Nam and that incredibly well fleshed-out relationship between the Tony Danza & Michelle Pfeiffer "characters". Um, right. I'm running out of brain capacity trying to think of all the other "um, right" moments...a cheerleader "forgets" to wear underwear -- um, right...the pledges run across not one but three stereotyped groups of blacks -- um, right...the cops...the kid with the skateboard...the "college guy" with the pipe...two Asian senior citizens hot-rodding a Cobra...repeat after me: "um, right".
Among the few (hell, the only) who marginally escape the carnage, well, Wuhl showed maturity beyond his (29!) years by clearly recognizing he was saddled with absolute dog schism, but deciding to play it out just like the brass said to, subsequently giving them (and the public) no one to blame but themselves. Meanwhile, The Nanny gave some proof she might eventually be able to act -- might -- but clearly wasn't shrewd enough to play above the material. So aside from her giving the audience a little crotch shot from the back of Newbomb Turk's van, there wasn't much else to go on. Meanwhile, by the time the flick was over, I realized that the only laugh I got -- the ONLY LAUGH I GOT -- was when the poor geek walked balls-first into that concrete pole. OK, maybe that, and the fact that someone would be named "Newbomb Turk".
Oh, and thank God the DVD comes in widescreen format too, because I would have been disappointed if I had missed something important in the way the director framed some of the shots.
Ninety minutes you can never have back.
When You Comin' Back, Red Ryder (1979)
Intriguing (Long, with Spoilers)
I recently paid up on eBay to purchase this film after my interest was piqued by what I read on the web and IMDB. I had stumbled across it during a search for pictures of Candy Clark that didn't quite pay off, but that's another story...
I liked this film. I'm glad I watched it. It isn't easily "recommended" because it isn't exactly "pleasant" or "fun", but I think it's worth seeing for the subject matter and message.
After the fact, I no longer agree that the first half-hour was bad. It might have unfolded slowly, but I relished the vignettes on the night before the action started. I then realized that the characterizations trotted out, which seemed one-dimensional at first, were actually comments on the lives that these people were dealt (Angel, Red, Red's mom) or themselves pursued (the Ethridges). I think it set up the understanding of who these people were and how they would react to the goings-on in the diner.
I found Teddy's initial discourse, when he's warming up and testing the crowd, to be more rewarding than the showy exposition that developed afterwards. Still, it was the latter part that forced the gang to face (what *Teddy believed* were) their weaknesses and failings. For Angel, Red and Lyle it was the first time they had been brought to their attention. It was clear, though, that the Ethridges knew exactly what Teddy was talking about. This dichotomy drove my opinion about what the film's message is.
(Spoiler Alert)
What I found most interesting is that, as intelligent as Teddy is portrayed to be (rage notwithstanding), he gets it dead wrong on Angel, Red, and Lyle. I believe this is the point of the film.
When Teddy finally turns upon Angel in the simple terms she can understand, his comments are certainly cruel and "revealing" of things she never considered or talked about -- but his points are not character failings. He calls her fat. So what? It runs in her family, she is neither in denial nor sad because of it, and it does not bother her or inhibit her self-awareness. Is she "too sweet" for him? Is she wrong for being genuinely nice to people in a place where - until Teddy showed up -- the ugliness of the "real world" hadn't tarnished everyone's view of it? Should she distrust others more? He's off base. There's nothing wrong with how she lives her life, other than that (he thinks) she hasn't reached high enough. If she hasn't, it's because she doesn't really know what's out there, but she's giving it her best shot here.
Next, Red is clearly Teddy's main target. He's the first to flash an attitude when Teddy enters the diner, but that's the same look he shows everyone. More important is that Teddy doesn't think Red's rebel act is justified by having suffered the pains of the "real world" first-hand. So Red has a tattoo that Teddy thinks he hasn't earned? What would make Red's persona "legitimate" -- going to Vietnam and coming back a psychotic killer? Is that `better'? Another thing about Red is that, of all the characters, he knows his future lies somewhere outside of town, and he knows it may be difficult or even impossible to pursue it. But he's realistic and responsible about it -- he wants to replace his mother's car before he can leave, and (until the events in the diner) he doesn't want the assistance that Lyle offers in that regard. He'll do it all himself, even if he doesn't know quite how. He might not have the answers, but he's asking the questions, so is he really such a failure?
(Even Lyle might not look like he's got a lot left in the tank, but he still manages to successfully direct the confused girlfriend away from Teddy, and he rigs the VW to break down just outside of town.)
Meanwhile, the outlook for the Ethridges is uncertain. They are going home to their young child, but are they willing to jettison the superficial routine that consists of his management of her music career? Will they decide whether something really exists between them or not? Difficult to say, but not by accident is their future least clear -- of the main players, they are the only ones who *knowingly* live a lie. I believe this is why they have the least reward awaiting them after having been forced to face their reality.
This is the irony of the film. Teddy seems to be the worst nightmare for these people, an unstoppable force who knows what's wrong with their lives and punishes them for it. Then it becomes clear that his assault has only served to motivate the dreamers, the ones who wanted more (whether they knew it or not), to try to improve their lives. They have nothing but upside. The ones who knew the truth but didn't care to improve don't get quite the rosy outlook -- they disappear.
Much credit goes to the lead actors who agreed to play in this film, because they either understood or came to understand what the meaning of the movie would be. It sure as hell wasn't because they thought it was going to land them that Oscar. And if Gortner, as producer, was the driving force behind the film's creation, then he gets props as well because he had to realize there wouldn't be measurable upside from it, only a lesson that he wanted to tell.
Thanks for reading my take on the film. I hope you found it of interest. See also the "message forum" for a question I have about one part of the flick; perhaps you wondered about it as well.
Ronin (1998)
Not a Rave Review
This film surprisingly came up well short of my expectations. The production quality is very good but many events, plot "developments", lines of dialogue, and even pivotal characters are eventually revealed as arbitrary or inconsequential. For such a skilled cast to be given so little to do between action scenes is an incredible waste. About 3/4 through there is a thirty-second sequence where absolutely nothing occurs or is said, thoughtfully allowing you to consider whether or not to leave the theatre and get home a little earlier. Stick around, though, through another car chase and some shootouts, for an unexpected voice-over from a character whose sudden burst of perspective is an excuse-me attempt to dump a quick, tidy ending on you. One that happens to contradict the relation between the lead character and the title (explained twice for those finding seats a little late), by the way. Then go home, recall all the loose ends in both the smaller details and the overall story, and ask how those responsible for this film could leave it so incomplete.