cinemabon Reviews

Dracula (1979)

The adapted play becomes the film

[8/10 · 25 January 2022]

In 1977, Hamilton Deane and John Balderston made an adaptation of the original dramatized version of Dracula from 1931 that later starred Bela Lugosi. They wanted to emphasize the "sexy" Dracula and cast young Frank Langella to play Dracula who seduced young women in romantic bedroom scenes. The play ran to sold out crowds and won a Tony award for the production (Langella was also nominated). Film director Tod Browning so loved the play he wanted to make a film version. Since Universal owned the rights, it was easy to adapt the original screen and modernize the text. However, the production didn't go as planned and ran into several problems. By the time it debuted, critics universally slammed the film as a crude adaptation. I liked parts of it. Frank Langella recreated his Broadway role with panache. John Williams wrote a dynamic and effusive score. Shot in super-widescreen Panavision, the film has everything a good horror film should have except brevity. Many scenes last too long and get bogged down in senseless dialogue. Still, there are parts that thrill and shock, which is why I gave it 8 stars and not four or five the way most people have.

No Time to Die (2021)

Most disappointing Bond film since Timothy Dalton

[1/10 · 11 November 2021]

Let's face it. Bond movies are NOT supposed to end this way. Cubby even included the famous line: "James Bond will be back" because audiences figured that when Connery left the series, they were kaput! No Bond film ever ended this way... dare I say it again? Am I repeating myself? Bond always goes off and does his thing. He either moves on to another case or goes to some remote location with the girl for a little smooching. But NEVER EVER in the history of the franchise did a Bond movie end this way. I was stunned. Even more than stunned. I was angry! And upset! I cried... then I got even more angry. How dare they put "James Bond will be back" at the end of the credits after the way they ended this film. I spit on your grave. I have every Bond film. I've seen them all a hundred times. I will never own this movie. What a rip off! They stole plot devices from other Bond films. They even ripped off the score! Spit! Spit! Spit!

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

Ending emotional payoff thanks to John Williams

[10/10 · 27 June 2020]

While I'm sure Alexandre Desplat is a competent composer, the series ends with the image underscored by themes composed by John Williams, not Desplat, whose major contribution to this film consisted of loud contrapuntal music that underscored the fight scenes. However, the music we love, the music we remember are the themes Williams employs with ever film he scores, giving characters unique music cues that help the audience identify with them when they appear. We wouldn't feel about Potter the way we do without those themes, as his contributions to cinema are vastly underrated and underappreciated. John Williams is the greatest film composer of all time for a reason. He's just brilliant. He can take any piece of cinema and turn it into one of thrilling amazement without the viewer understanding that it is music that brings the visceral connection most people subconsciously identify. Williams scores make movies great and memorable. Where would Indiana Jones, Superman, ET, and Luke Skywalker be without John Williams giving us a cue that help us "feel" the way we do about them. So to give Williams a tiny credit at the end of this movie is a disservice to the composer. The final shot of the movie is one that makes us laugh, makes us cry, gives us emotional connection because it is John Williams music that underscores the final shot.

Endeavour: Prey (2016) Season 3, Episode 3

Prey versus Jaws - homage or ripoff

[10/10 · 5 July 2016]

As an ardent fan of Endeavour I have to admit that prejudice or bias toward the show will cloud my judgment somewhat. However, as a film historian and critic, I was somewhat taken aback last night when I found myself inside a Steven Spielberg movie, right down to the staging and dialogue. It's one thing to acknowledge such similarities with a credit line that should read: The producers wish to thank Steven Spielberg for being such an inspiration. Or some such nonsense. In this case, they did not and I'm almost wondering if there isn't a case for plagiarism. A girl flirts with a man around a campfire, runs away, stripping and dives into the water. That man, too drunk to follow, passes out on land. We see the woman drifting back and forth until she finally goes under. A man known as the chief, recalls his encounter with a "man eating" creature in a long emotional speech. A forensic pathologist disputes the findings of a local doctor about the cause of death that includes the lines: "This was no boating accident and it wasn't caused from a propeller..." aka, Richard Dreyfus speech. Even the title is the same number of letters and (spoiler) it is the chief, with his rifle, who takes the fatal shot! Those were the most obvious comparisons. I hoped at the end, they would at least say something about Spielberg. It was his direction that inspired those scenes. So I was more than a little puzzled when it didn't and wondered why? The episode is satisfying in that Anton Lesser who has played something of an antagonist gets to be the hero for once. Bravo for that. Yet, if I was Spielberg, I'd be on the phone to England and ask: Did you think Brexit involves absolution from the copyright laws?

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Great SFX, followed by cliché after cliché

[4/10 · 4 June 2015]

Jupiter Ascending – directed by Andy and Lana Wachovski

Good science fiction opera has space ships, strange worlds, and a myriad cast of unusual characters; so does "Jupiter Ascending." In addition to a strong cast (Channing Tatum, Mila Kunis, Eddie Redmayne and Sean Bean) experienced directors in the genre, and outstanding special effects by Industrial Light and Magic; Jupiter Ascending would appear to have all the elements necessary for a successful run as brilliant science fiction story. The production design by Hugh Bateup (Matrix and Superman) is imaginative and engaging. Photography by Oscar winner John Toll (Braveheart, Legends of the Fall) is the best I've seen in a science fiction movie for at least three years. I did not find the score by Michael Giacchino exceptional although he did win an Oscar for "Up." Overall, a talented remarkable crew. Then what happened? Why did this film fail (though commercially, it recouped its budget, success in Hollywood is measured by percentages that exceed twenty percent of gross)?

I believe, if you're going to introduce audiences to a new world (as did John Carter) you must think on a scale that replicates the larger-than-life format. George Lucas did. However, one shudders to think if his first film had been a flop. No more Star Wars. No more science fiction. Finances would have dried up. When Star Wars became such a colossal success, it opened the door for a flood of fantasy/science fiction that followed and a genre reborn to a public bored with outer space. Only two sci-fi formats – Star Trek and Star Wars – have captured the public's imagination. While this is a review of Jupiter Ascending (which I enjoyed as a science fiction writer), I find this conundrum puzzling. Why haven't other big budget sci-fi movies achieved the same success?

I believe in this instance, the depth of the characters seemed too shallow and very cardboard cutout characters of previous villains, heroes and interested parties. We've seen maniacal galactic emperors (Flash, The Chronicles of Riddick) who get their comeuppance. We've also seen confused princesses who come into their own and end up kicking ass in some throne room. We've seen hard-nosed sidekicks (Han Solo, etc) who come to the lady's defense. One of the film's main premises is that (spoiler) the Earth is a farm from which wealthy galactic citizens derive a serum that prolongs their life (a similar theme in the Matrix where people were farmed as "batteries"). The other main premise is that everything in the universe boils down to one word – profit (greed is good?). How drool. My mother could have come up with better premise than that! Lastly, does every woman in the universe seem as weak as Mila Kunis does? "I will do anything if you release my family…" Don't we all know that if you drop that gun, or give in, the villain gets his way and kills everyone anyway, that you lose your bargaining chip? Are we the audience that stupid that we haven't seen this scenario about a million plus times?

I believe that when you write science fiction (as I do), you need to come at the material with fresh eyes, be inventive, try not to use clichés or be repetitious, and most of all try to be unpredictable. While my villainous characters in "Similitude" (shameless plug) are consumed with wealth and profit, they find delight in exploring other worlds other than just to exploit their resources. Villains can't be imitations of Wall Street barons. You may decry Lucas' space opera as being simple, but you never knew where it was going or who was going to succeed. Success is measured by failures that ultimately result in triumph – not just good over evil, but good ideas over bad ones. Profit as a motive for success cheapens research and study, for pursuit of knowledge is its own reward. I'd give everything I ever knew for five minutes inside Einstein's brain. But I would give spit to know what any billionaire knows – how to make money. That would be the most boring of all. Can they write a symphony, solve a complex equation, or study a subject that reveals an unknown quantity? A script, a story must be inventive. I grow tired of the same canned trash dressed in a fancy gown.

George Lucas knew the value of a good story. He continued to surprise us to the end and did so to the strains of John Williams (perhaps one of the key elements to this mystery). Of the three successful fantasy franchises – Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and Star Trek – you also have three very memorable scores by Howard Shore (Oscar), John Williams (Oscar) and Jerry Goldsmith (Oscar). The acting and special effects were standard. The scores were above the ordinary. So, did the score of those movies place them above the rest? Or, was there something else that doomed this production?

Jupiter Ascending – like Cloud Atlas before it – is the brainchild of the Wachowski brothers (one sexually changed) who also gave us The Matrix. Like Cloud Atlas, the co-directors bit off more than they could chew. Instead of a great science fiction movie, we get little bits and pieces here and there of greatness with long tracks of minutes filled with nothing worth remembering when we – the audience – walk out the door. No tune stuck in my head. No moment of distinction from which I could point and say, "Did you see that scene?" As with "John Carter" you have a finely crafted story, told by Hollywood experts fill with banal spaces between tiny bits of brilliance. Any composer would tell you… that's a sure fire way to put your audience asleep.

Tomorrowland (2015)

Exploitation of another Disney ride

[5/10 · 22 May 2015]

Tomorrowland – directed by Brad Bird

Disney's capitalization of its theme parks goes from the Haunted Mansion to Pirates of the Caribbean and now Tomorrowland. Unfortunately, the previews – which exploited the few "wow" special effects shots – have set the audience up for a major let down. We've been led to believe this film is about going to such a grand visionary utopia. It isn't. This movie tends to wallow in the pulpit of doomsday far too long and pontificated by too many characters. When it is an adventure movie, it tends to be exciting, such as during the opening scene or in Clooney's house of inventive traps. But the film is not an adventure story, it's Hollywood preaching a message we all know too well. The film soon devolves into a chase movie with the bad guy robots after the all-too-perfect young girl on the run - yawn. Too bad. I would have loved to stay in Tomorrowland – Syd Mead's creation of the future. I've been an admirer of his for over forty years. Between Tomorrowland and Elysium – his other visionary creation – filmmakers have abused Mead's futuristic settings rather than infuse their settings into a cohesive plot. We can't have our cake and eat it, too. There must be doom and gloom for mankind. No fun there.

Enter George Clooney (Frank Walker) – the narrator who opens the movie. This is where Bird made his first mistake. Clooney is a brilliant actor and I like him very much. But he is horribly miscast in this film. His father figure is very weak – part recluse, part mad scientist – a boring cliché. I'd sooner see a paid politician standing on a stage preaching the evils in the world than wasting Clooney on speeches such as the inane simplified ones that open and close the film. He violates the fourth wall, addressing the camera as "I'm about to tell you this really cool story that happened to me." Already that method of storytelling cheapens the plot. We know his fate. Further, Clooney's emotions run the gambit scale from A to A sharp – no Oscar nomination here.

Next, we have the completely miscast weak villain of Huge Laurie (Nix) – again, a great actor but about as threatening as a bathtub full of tepid water. Nix first appears as a guide leading a pack of dignitaries into Tomorrowland. No more threatening than some city manager with too much efficiency on the brain. When we see Mr. No again, he first brags about not aging and throws this in Clooney's face as if this was the ultimate insult – I suppose from one vain actor to another. His "British" take on his evil character is to be stern – very forgettable.

The other person in this triad of miscasting is the protagonist teenager Casey Newton played by Britt Robertson. One thing we know from the start – she knows how to scream. That much is certain. Her reaction to most things is to scream. She's either extremely excitable or this is her direction from Bird. Either way, as the film's lead, I found her performance unbelievable from the start. I had no sympathy for her and didn't feel any yearning for her to fulfill her quest to visit Tomorrowland.

The only people with any meat in their parts are Thomas Robinson as young Frank and Raffey Cassidy as Athena. Their friendship is apparent from the start as these two actors fit their parts perfectly. They make us believe in them and why they're attracted to each other – Athena for her beauty and Frank for his ingenuity. When Athena makes it possible for Frank to enter Tomorrowland, we get the first glimpse of a world where everything is possible. They're able to convey the feeling of innocence and discovery, something lacking in the other characters.

Tomorrowland's message wants to be one of hope. At every turn, Disney wants to squash that feeling of buoyancy flat by injecting a world of despondency. Rather than an inventive film, the movie boils down to a few long speeches by George Clooney and Hugh Laurie about disappointment and failure. By the time Bird injects his message of hope it arrives too late to bring this film up out of its doldrums. No matter how uplifting the music in the final shot, I just wanted the movie to end. And what a shame. I loved Bird's work on The Incredibles and Up. He brought great enthusiasm and inventiveness to Pixar. Like Elysium, I kept hoping the film would take the high ground and bring about the world of Tomorrow. It never happens. I would call Tomorrowland a vision that can never be, because, as Hugh Laurie puts it – "the world is full of greedy people, arguing politicians, and natural disasters, a world from which mankind will never awaken. We drive toward the end as if longing for it." That's how I felt about the film, too.

Recommended for its fabulous Sid Mead vision of the future but little else.

Inside Man (2006)

Spike shines with stellar cast

[10/10 · 16 May 2015]

To me, this is one of the most underrated films of the 21st Century's first decade. Full of plot twists, a great score, incredible edits, and a level of acting rarely seen in most films - "Inside Man" is a story full of misdirection and ironic endings.

With some reviewers - and IMDb is no exception - you will have detractors who would rather find weaknesses in a film rather than extol in its delights. I can't find any fault with this film and I've seen it over a dozen times, each time it entertained me. I was and have been an admirer of Spike Lee for many years. But until he made this film, I found his historical epics very formal and straightforward in their presentation. This movie is full of surprises, sure to please most movie fans who've grown tired of special effects laden films or car chases. This film is pure cinema and I bow to Mr. Lee's genius along with a great writer, Russell Gewirtz. Highly recommended.

Under Capricorn (1949)

Fatally flawed

[1/10 · 27 September 2014]

Under Capricorn – Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

The great experiment – hire the best actors and give them long takes to act on sets, just as they would on stage. Their performances should sell tickets. Hitch couldn't understand that this was neither the time nor the place to make that gamble. To understand why this film seems so stilted compared to other Hitchcock films both before and after, you must understand the two acting styles between theater and film. William Wyler and other directors (including Hitch) were the first to recognize that because of film's intimacy with close up lenses, the use of large gestures, voluminous voices, and heavy emphasis on certain phrases tend to over dramatize when the image is expanded to a hundred foot screen.

Stage acting must sustain a performance when the actor is on stage – all the time the actor is on stage. A film actor isn't on stage or even in front of an audience (though sometimes the crew will behave that way to encourage an actor). Film is an intimate medium and is more a directors and editors medium. A shot can be shortened or cut to a differing length no matter how well an actor has performed at its conclusion. Consecutive shots make up the film process, not continuous performances.

The long takes in "Under Capricorn" serve to undermine the filmmaking process and Hitch would learn this lesson the hard way as this film failed with audiences. The movie is more a staged melodrama and less the kind of suspenseful film that cemented Hitchcock's reputations. After World War II, acting styles had changed radically. New York began to churn out actors from the Actor's Studio versus the Stanislavsky method that actors like Bette Davis employed. Instead of shooting what he needed for the plot, Hitchcock decided to let the actors perform. He never made a film this way again. Film is not theater for so many reasons and forcing it to be one makes for poor cinema. How many filmmakers learn that lesson the hard way?

The first day of shooting "Wuthering Heights," William Wyler almost fired Lawrence Olivier. "I don't care where you've acted or what you've done on stage, this is film and you must give me realism or we'll be here all day." Olivier learned to pull back under Wyler's direction. Hitch may have been the master of suspense, but he was no good when it came to evoking spontaneous performances. Once he went back to his formula way of making pictures, he became successful as evidenced in his next film, "Strangers on a train." "Under Capricorn" was an experiment that failed. Every auteur genius is allowed one or two in their career. Kubrick, Spielberg, Wyler – they all had them. Hitch had them, too.

John Carter (2012)

Grew on me

[9/10 · 2 August 2014]

I confess I did not see the film in the theater. I saw the previews and another special effects extravaganza seemed too much at the time. However, having purchased the film on Blu-ray and watching it at home, I've grown to like the film and even wish they'd shot a sequel. Unfortunately, Disney 's box office did not exceed its high expectations they had for the franchise, so they scrapped all plans. Too bad. I'm actually dying to know what happens next. "John Carter on Mars" will go down with the "Golden Compass" as movies that could have been possible in the realm of fantasy. The corporate world will only tolerate a blockbuster. Anything else is considered a failure.

I would have given the film a ten if not for some of the weak acting roles. If the acting on screen is poor, I generally place that blame on the director's doorstep. However, Stanton wrote the screenplay and directed - a daunting task. With so many special effect shots and cast members that are CGI (the four armed creatures), making a film on this epic scale is not an easy job. Just to complete it in a timely fashion and with this level of quality (sets, costumes, music) pushed the rating from a seven to a nine.

Anna Karenina (I) (2012)

When is a Russian play...

[1/10 · 27 August 2013]

When is a Russian play more like an English drawing room drama? When it's "Anna Karenina!" Presented with more English accents than "Downton Abbey," this version of the famous Russian novel by Tolstoy - called by William Faulkner as "the greatest novel ever written" – hardly does a novel with such an illustrious title justice. This version's style (as a play instead of a natural setting) and its acting (East End drama with actors spouting perfect Oxfordian English) leave one wondering what Tolstoy had in mind – not this soapy opera as this film presents. Assuredly, if one bothers to do such things as read a novel, then you begin to realize that Tolstoy had a great deal in mind when he wrote this prior to the only novel he considered he ever wrote, "War and Peace." The Soviet version, shot in 1967, is far better in its presentation and dramatization than this British version could ever attempt to be. However, you will have your contemporaries who accept anything current and decry films from the past as too stilted (acting is so much better today than it was then). Not always. "Anna Karenina" is proof of that.

12 Angry Men (1957)

Actor's tour de force

[10/10 · 8 June 2013]

There are not any real spoilers here but in discussing characters I could reveal some plot points and the last thing I want to do is give away any portion of the film's powerful message or ending.

Sidney Lumet gathered the cream of the film-acting crop (and Broadway for that matter) to make a film version of the play. The entire movie is basically twelve sweating men arguing in one room for an hour and a half. However, the dynamics of the script and the performances of the actors in this claustrophobic presentation are the key elements that make this film a classic. Not a shot in this film is wasted. Every moment is filled with tension brought about by actors who knew how to utilize every aspect of their bodies to portray emotion from their position to their expression. Each character is so unique, you'd think it was a complete slice of Americana minus African American representation. "12 Angry Men" is a must see movie not simply because it is an acting tour de force, but because as a film it works and as a piece of cinema history, it is a classic that must be seen, this version being the best.

Starchaser: The Legend of Orin (1985)

Star what?

[1/10 · 8 June 2013]

Spoilers contained within:

If you intend to read the hype of those people who give this film an 8 or higher, then you shouldn't bother to read the review of someone who went to the premiere of this film, with all of the cardboard cut outs and Klieg lights in front of the theater. The film was originally presented in 3D and as we sat with our Polarized lenses on, the first problem presented itself - the cardboard cut-out syndrome. You had the feeling you were watching the film as it must have looked to the photographer as he looked down through the multi-plane animation stand with foreground and background mostly static and the middle plane made up of the character (also flat-looking) moving around. Second, the plot was far too close to the "Star Wars" films which had just finished dominating American cinemas in their three-film run between 1977-1983. You had Orin, who more than resembled Luke, with a sword that worked like a laser; you had Dagg (Han) a rogue space pilot with a vessel like the Millennium Falcon; a cute robot Silica (C3P0) and the evil Zygon who mirrored the emperor/Vader character. Did we mention the force? Those would be the legendary Ka-Khan whose mystical guidance are used by Luke, uh Orin. Confused? You will be. This is a cardboard movie, limited animation, corny predictable plot, and horrible score (far from John Williams). If you liked this movie, you don't know science fiction. If you loved this movie, you don't know cinema. Not recommended.

The Iron Petticoat (1956)

Katherine Hepburn at her worst

[1/10 · 15 November 2012]

If you're looking for a title that shows off Katy Hepburn's talents, this should be at the bottom of the list. For MGM in the 1950's, it was easier and cheaper to rework an old script rather than write new material. Such was the case with this reworking of "Ninotchka" originally a vehicle for Greta Garbo. In this instance, Dore Schary, in trying to save money and put up a "big star" convinced Hepburn to take the part. To say her Russian accent is a cross between New England slang and bad British is to be kind. Hope was so dismayed over Ben Hecht's script, that he and producer Harry Saltzman conspired with outside writers to give Hope "ad libs" to punch up his part. This so infuriated Hecht that he went to Schary and demanded his name be taken off the project (which Schary did not allow). Slated to make its network premier this month on Turner Movie Classics I would encourage fans of Hepburn patience in watching this debacle between British director Ralph Thomas and two "prima-donna" stars who departed this film never speaking to one another again. An absolute turkey and not recommended except for the most die hard Hope fans who like his ab lib humor.

Escape from New York (1981)

Kurt Russell is unforgettable

[10/10 · 31 May 2012]

In 1981, New York's Times Square was filled with pawn shops, strip joints, peep shows, drug addicts, and prostitutes. It seems worlds away from the Disney stages and suburban mall feel that has taken its place. For nearly fifteen years between 1965 and 1980, Americans watched the hearts of their largest cities degenerate into havens for the miserable, misbegotten, and mislead. Great theaters fell into disrepair or were torn down. Unique specialty shops disappeared. The major department stores that at one time drew people from hundreds of miles away were sold off for real estate speculators. Small wonder we didn't expect that trend to continue.

Writers/Directors John Carpenter and Nick Castle wrote a pessimistic future for New York. That one day, instead of trying to fix the mess, society would throw up its hands and walk away. We'd burn our bridges behind us, wall off the place and make it a large penal colony. Carpenter and Castle couldn't see that one factor prevented that scenario from ever taking place – Wall Street had too much invested in its infrastructure to write off leaving their investment behind, which was then and is even more today, considerable. Therefore, the premise is not only dated but goofy. Still, the movie delivers on different levels that can be satisfying even without implausibility of its premise.

"Escape from New York" actually takes place in the 1990's and unlike the more plausible but equally pessimistic "Blade Runner" the entire island of Manhattan becomes a huge prison. Through some mishap of fate, the president's jet, Air Force One, goes down and the president escapes via a special survivor's pod that ends up inside the futuristic colony (picture New York City even more run down than it was in 1981). Enter the comic book superhero and sexy cross-over anti-hero Snake Plissken, played to sneering perfection by a youthful, slim and muscular Kurt Russell. Once a Disney goody-two-shoes, Russell cast that image aside the moment he strode onto the set with his eye patch slightly askew and a cigarette dangling from under his long blond locks. Sent in after the president with a built-in self-destruct timer, Snake must deliver the president or suffer a terminal end to his assignment. A great supporting cast helps this low-budget sci-fi thriller such as Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine, Donald Pleasence, Isaac Hayes, Harry Dean Stanton, and Adrienne Barbeau (at her voluptuous peak).

Carpenter never really directed a large budget film until "Halloween" which made millions in its first release. After that, he directed several hits, including "Starman" and "The Thing" both which had respectable box office. As strangely out of date as the film is in regards to predicting the future, it works as a storytelling device in creating a film that has suspense, action, drama, and some wonderful characters worth watching. "Escape from New York" eventually achieved cult status in the sci-fi "con" world, and if you can forget the opening premise, is entertaining fare for those who love dark comic book anti-heroes like Snake Plissken, more or less a precursor to "Batman." Russell so impressed audiences at the time that he could never completely shake the persona he had created. For those of us who became fans of Russell from that point on imagined the tattoo of a snake on his front that ended… well, you know where it ended. I always thought Goldie Hawn was the luckiest Hollywood bride during the decade that followed that film, partnered with a man's man, whatever that is. Years later, Russell reprised the same role for the even more fantastic but slightly more humorous "Escape from LA" also directed by John Carpenter.

If you've never seen "Escape from New York," watch the supporting cast for some surprising levels of excellence. If you haven't seen "Escape from New York" in a while, I suggest it's time for a second, third, or fourth look.

Blade Runner (1982)

The Future... well, not quite

[10/10 · 30 May 2012]

Futurist Syd Mead (design stylist who started with Ford and moved into film with his first feature, Star Trek – the Motion Picture) gave director Ridley Scott a blueprint by which he could formulate a world of the future, an apocalyptic or apocryphal vision of the future where humanity would struggle to survive in a dirty, dusty, polluted world dominated by oil and where most species of animals had gone extinct.

The object being, we'll just clone them and everything will be OK. It was easy to believe such a world would come to pass in the late 1970's when the Arab oil embargo woke America up to the fact that oil and money, not the military, would call the shots for the people of planet Earth.

The story of "Blade Runner" is only loosely based on Phillip K. Dick's novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" whereby Dick envisioned a time where cyborgs (combinations of humans and robots) would merge into androids and become as intelligent as people – begging the question, "Would they dream?" Scott gave the weight of the film to special effects supervisors Richard Yuricich, who had already proved his worth on "Star Wars" and Douglas Trumbull, who had set the groundwork for special effects with his early work on "2001" and then later on "Close Encounters." Trumbull loved to use miniatures while Yuricich's approach was to use opticals and traveling mattes. Combined, the two men created some dazzling special effects that hold up even after forty years and the advent of CGI. Of course, it helps to have perpetual darkness and constant rain to mask any deficiencies. Still, we can suspend our disbelief and take in this once possible vision of a world now just seven years away. We can believe in the flying cars and pyramid shaped buildings that rise out of old LA because they help to tell this dark story and its tale of a future world run by corporations run amok.

The problem with predicting the future is that most people, most authors, never look at the practical side of the equation. While it would be nice to have a flying car, the idea that the sky is filled with flying objects that could crash into one another over a school yard or a hospital or a city park is even more frightening than a robot that walks, talks, and looks human. Meanwhile there is the practical side of creating replicants, the so-called "cheap labor" used to help create offworld colonies. The cost of even one such creature would be astronomical compared to the cost benefits derived. The idea a corporation could crank them out like car parts in a world already filled with seven billion people is downright silly. Why build a robot when plenty of cheap labor is readily available for one one-hundred-thousandth of the cost? Predicting the future is tricky business.

In the end, it is the "film noir" side of "Blade Runner" that is exciting to watch along with its versatile cast of players. Scott employs his actors to perform as Humphrey Bogart might in the "Maltese Falcon" – say little, express more with the eyes and appearance. Scott's use of score is questionable. Vangelis purely synthetic sound at times grates on the nerve when it overwhelms a scene and takes getting used to. However, what has made the sci-fi offering a classic perhaps falls upon the steadiness of actor Harrison Ford, who emotes even less than the entire cast combined. His universal appeal comes from his common sense of humanity which he brings to every role – that sort of wise handyman who can fix whatever is wrong. Scott was wise to cast Ford, who manages to keep one foot of this whacko fantasy on the ground long enough for us to relate.

While I gave the film an overall rating of 10 because I believe you should see it, the film has fallen from grace in my mind and is no longer the "Wow" movie I saw in LA at its premiere years ago.

Limitless (I) (2011)

One pill makes you smaller...

[9/10 · 17 November 2011]

Limitless Limitless - directed by Neil Burger

If you could take a pill that would make you smart… no, let's change that premise. If you could take a pill that would increase your intelligence – a distinct difference – would you take it? Of course, you would. Who wouldn't? That is the ultimate temptation to the ignorant world. We look around and see ignorance and complacency all around us. Consider ignorance as you would a plague. Mankind has suffered under its yoke since its inception, when we stood upright and some of us chose to build things rather than swing in trees – only now, you know the tree thing is silly in comparison. The pill makes it possible to possess the highest form of intelligence without any kind of hindrance. Remove all obstacles to reason, and you've created the ultimate moment in gathering disparate facts, putting them together, and making intelligence a tool for advanced development. You would be vastly superior to nearly everyone else around you. This is the premise of "Limitless" and the goal of scientists for many generations.

To say we use twenty percent of our brain is a misnomer. We use all of our brain constantly – to walk, to eat, to breathe, to see, to hear, and memorize most of what we experience. Much of that experience is not stored for recall later… only packets of what we read, what we see, what we hear is actually stored for our use. We compartmentalize our experiences. However, we use only twenty percent of what we know at any one time to make informed decisions based on our memory. What if you could take information you learned, say, thirty years ago, or seven years ago, or even three months ago, and apply it to a present situation. That would involve more of your brain's capacity to reason. Some people can use more than twenty percent to make informed decisions. But no human uses one hundred percent of their mind's capacity all of the time.

In "Limitless," washed up "science-fiction writer," (why do they have to be washed up science fiction writers, damn it!) Eddie Morra, encounters an old friend, an acquaintance really, who gives him a sample of an experimental drug (AZT, NZT, something like that… its name is not important). He also happens to be Eddie's ex-brother-in-law from a failed marriage. He sees how Eddie is down on his luck and could use a hand… only he fails to tell Eddie everything about the drug he offers Eddie, only that it will transform his life.

What does Eddie have to lose? His girlfriend left him. His publisher cuts him off. He's about to be evicted. So, he takes the drug. In a wonderful bit of make-up and lighting special effects, Eddie changes. His skin takes on a certain healthy glow. His blue eyes now sparkle. His facial affect has that tone of wisdom about it (kudos to actor Bradley Cooper for making the facial transition so convincing. Without his ability to perform this interior transformation, the film would lose its credibility). Eddie goes home and rattles off forty pages to the book he had hardly touched. The next day, the publisher is beating down his door for more. Eddie is thrilled with the prospect he could become successful. Yet, Eddie makes a horrible discovery, one that drives him back to his brother-in-law's apartment – the drug has an addictive quality to it. The down side, in a nutshell – stop using it and it will kill you! Driven to near madness, Eddie realizes he needs to keep going. He agrees to do what is necessary for his brother-in-law and goes to run his errands. When he returns, he finds the apartment turned upside-down and his brother-in-law assassinated. What he also realizes is that, in the middle of this intrigue, the burglars failed to find what Eddie also wanted, the drug. He finds the "stash," avoids the pursuant police investigation, and begins a meteoric rise in society.

"Limitless" is a wild roller-coaster ride, a movie on caffeine; no car chases, explosions, or emphasis on CGI. It's just good plain storytelling. Without a good director at the helm, Brad Cooper may have overplayed his hand. However, thanks to director Neil Burger (The Illusionist), character Eddie Morra has all the subtly needed to pull off the weighty role convincingly. We believe Eddie's transformations, which continue throughout the film, from street bum, to smart savvy jet-setter, to intellectual, to driven drug addict and beyond. Had this film come out in December, I would suggest Cooper's portrayal as Oscar-worthy. It is that good. He has help along the way with a great supporting cast, that includes Robert DeNiro as a corporate fat cat bad guy and a pretty but gullible girlfriend in Abbie Cornish as Lindy. However, most of the film is dependent on Brad Cooper. He is in every scene and dominates every shot. This is his film to sell or lose. He comes off with panache.

The opening "credits" shot is one of the most unique in cinema history. It appears as one continuous zoom shot (used again later to suggest the passage of time), which takes us from one end of New York's Manhattan to its opposite end in a matter of seconds. The unique blend of forward movement, kept in focus, while adding continuous motion has never been put on the screen in this way. I applaud both the camera work of Belgium DP Jo Willems, along with Editors Tracy Adams and Naomi Geraghty, whose camera work and seamless cuts place the audience right in the middle of the action. Veteran makeup artist Janeen Schreyer also gets mention for the expert job of helping to transform Cooper through his constantly changing personality.

"Limitless" is unpredictable, exciting, compelling, and thrilling. I would also venture to say that "Limitless" is the best film I've seen this year, easily. Highly recommended.

Ben-Hur (1959)

Greatest religious epic of all time

[10/10 · 8 April 2011]

Everyone writes how great Heston is in this film. William Wyler nearly fired Heston the first day. He said, "Chuck you'd better bring your game up or I'll have to replace you." It was Wyler who set the standard for this and all of his films (his movies garnered more Oscar nominations than any director in the history of film). Greer Garson called him "ninety take Willie." He demanded perfection and usually got it. From Miklos Rosza's score to the incredible performances from all of his actors, "Ben Hur" was a screen classic the moment it debuted. Contrast that with other religious epics and few compare. Wyler purposely did not show the face of Jesus. He felt "christ" should reflect all of humanity, and so refused to typify any image, regardless of the studio pressure to do so. Wyler won the Oscar (his third) and capped a crowning career with more hit films, more best picture nominations, and more accolades than any director before or since. Highly recommended on blue ray disc for details not present on previous versions, especially the DVD special feature on Yakima Canutt's second unit who made the chariot race scenes possible.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

Wow! Special Effects!

[1/10 · 13 June 2010]

Anyone still impressed by CGI after we've had Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and hundreds of other fairly decent films thrown at us needs to get a life. Please stop talking about how good the special effects are. Impressive explosions or magical events on the screen do not a Jedi make, or a good movie. Any good movie or film has two key elements, story and direction. In this case, you have no story and a very convoluted plot. The story is a made up fantasy based on a video game that is only partly successful. Strike one. Secondly, let us consider director Mike Newell and his mostly television career. The small screen is one form of entertainment. When you take an image and blow it up to seventy feet across, you'd better put something interesting up there, because people will see every detail. Unlike television that shrinks a world to sameness, film is an art form that examines details. A good director can use even limited actors and make something work. But a bad director will fall back on things like special effects to sell a bad scene. This film is an example of directing at its worst. The stumbling pace, the up and down tempo, the failed execution, and the poor acting I lay at Newell's doorstep. This film is about to lose about a hundred million dollars or more for Disney at a time when their Magic Kingdoms have seen dramatic fall off in numbers, and I would not want to be in his shoes when they start adding up the loses.

Hearts and Minds (1974)

The book of Vietnam

[10/10 · 7 March 2010]

Peter Davis tried to help us see our purpose in Vietnam with use of cinematic juxtaposition. In that regard, this film is extremely successful. On the one hand you hear the callous remarks of an aloof man far removed from the intricacies of everyday life in the country of Vietnam. He casually states that life in the orient is "cheap" in his own words. In the next scene, we see the pain and misery (I should say we feel it) that villagers who have lost children experience. It is agonizing to watch. The arrogance on the part of some Americans reduced the enemy to stereotypes carried over from World War II and was made to apply here by over simplistic politicians. The lessons from Vietnam are hard to forget for my generation, who lost so much: our innocence, our trust, and our brethren. When we watched those mistakes take place in Iraq, it pained many of us to relive them all over again. War enacts a terrible toll in terms of lives lost and wounded. Those wounds extend for generations.

This review comes at a time when politics once more plays a new important role in the Academy Awards. On the night of his acceptance, Peter Davis complained that the Vietnamese people still suffered at the hands of the American military and pleaded their case during the Oscar telecast. Frank Sinatra came out next and excused the speaker as not being a voice for members of the Academy. Warren Beatty, who next presented, thanked Sinatra as "you old Republican, you!" It displayed the bitter divisions that fracture our democracy along political lines, all started with Vietnam.

War has a terrible impact on the people who live in the area of conflict. While soldiers comprise a very small percentage of those involved, it is the citizens who suffer and die the most (most unreported), and whose lives are forever affected. Peter Davis simply tried to help us see the impact of what we do in places so far removed from this "peaceful" nation.

The Black Hole (1979)

Major Disney flop, not worthy of Walt's name

[1/10 · 10 February 2010]

I attended the 70mm premiere of "The Black Hole" in Hollywood in 1979. The pre-publicity for this film was huge. Buena Vista Studios pulled out all stops and published full page ads. The house was packed. I never saw so much disappointment in an audience. You could hear the audible gasps in certain scenes along with muffled snickers, it was that bad. Everyone was polite when the house lights came up, but you could tell... it flopped in a big way.

This was also the year of "Star Trek - the motion picture" and "Alien." During that 70mm premiere at the Egyptian, the film jumped the track and the 70mm film burned up before our eyes. A woman actually screamed which sent a wave of very loud gasps through the crowd. Fortunately, a friend of mine had other friends in Westwood (showing it 70mm later that day). We ran over there and they managed to squeeze us in. Compared to the "Black Hole" whether that comparison is fair or not, "Alien" was then and still is a sci-fi masterpiece, and complete pushed the "Black Hole" off the page for the year. No one associated with sci-fi would even mention "Black Hole" at the cons.

"The Black Hole" tried so hard to be legit Sci-fi. But in the end, a great roster of seasoned actors had a poor script (TV writer Bob Barash's only feature film), poor direction (TV director Gary Nelson's only feature film) and all the wonderful special effects or sweeping score cannot save an inherently bad movie. Disney has yet to make another attempt at Sci-fi that has or will be considered successful.

Shank (2009)

British Gay Indie Offering

[4/10 · 20 January 2010]

While Independent films are not my usual cup of tea, I have enjoyed many through the years ("Sex, lies, and videotape" etc). I do not expect high production values or good cutting. I try to keep an open mind and look for break out performances or decent writing. The plot of "Shank" is fair and has potential. The execution by Simon Pearce is less than desirable. His overuse of symbolism and rough cut edits between subplots is so erratic that it makes the film difficult to follow at times. One way to smudge a scene, if you haven't got a shot in editing, is to add a blurry, out of focus shot as filler. I found too many of those to stay in my comfort zone.

What did I find good about "Shank"? The dilemma of the gang person who is trying to find his own identity a good plot device. The subplot with the school teacher played a necessary role in the morality part of the story. However, when one actor carries such a heavy load as Wayne Virgo did for the part of Cal, then I believe you need to cast for more than just type. You must cast for talent. Marc Laurent did a good job as the French student and had a great sense of mise en scene. Another cast member that stood out was Tom Bott as Jonno. While his final scene was a bit much (director is responsible here), I thought he has great potential past this film.

Today, thanks to advances in technology, young gay people have a choice of film subjects and styles geared toward their orientation and subculture. "Shank" tries to be honest and address the concerns of many young gay men, although the execution needs a leg up... to use the vernacular.

The Room (2003)

Today's lesson: bad movie, fun audience

[1/10 · 27 July 2009]

This is a case where the movie is just awful. Nothing good can be said by a sensible intelligent person about this film, period. That said, what the 10 star young people seem to rave about is the "experience" part of the screening. As "Rocky Horror" did years ago, "The Room" has created a cult following of young people (mostly) who go to the film to make fun of the corny dialogue and silly premises. As with any "experience" film, the fun is that most of the audience has already seen the movie. They shout out the dialogue and give appropriate groans when the dialogue is exceptionally bad (which is almost always the case). If that is what you crave - a social interactive film experience - then "The Room" is your kind of movie. It has nothing else to offer... really. It is not an independent classic. It is not the great insight of a film genius. It is not the latest trend in cinema (although it closely resembles aspects of reality television). And, it is not a good movie. It is a very, very bad movie. But the experience is fun. Thus ended the lesson.

Random Harvest (1942)

Timeless love story

[10/10 · 8 July 2009]

This is one of those sentimental films like "An Affair to Remember" which you either love or don't. This one gets me every time. I nearly have to see it alone, since most men have trouble crying around other grown men. I love to listen to Ronald Coleman's voice. It is no wonder my mother fell in love with Mr. Coleman on the radio. Greer Garson is no slouch either. While they carry the English emphasis on correct behavior nearly to the breaking point, I still love the mystery and unsettled nature to this psychological mellodrama. In the scene where Kitty realizes Sir Charles does not love her, Coleman does incredible things with his face that defy description. Just his expression convinces her and us he does not love her. Mervyn LeRoy knows how to film dramas like this. "Mr. Roberts" is another favorite of mine he directed. Watch "Random Harvest" to witness the ultimate lifetime devotion of unrequited love that eventually comes to fruition.

Duck Dodgers (2003–2005)

Brilliant satire and wonderful romp in cartoonland

[10/10 · 29 April 2009]

If you are a fan of Warner Brother cartoons, such as Bugs, Elmer, Daffy, Yosemite, Foghorn, and many others, then you will love this series. I couldn't disagree more with the moron who posted the review that slammed this series. My son and I religiously watched each episode as they premiered week to week on Cartoon Network. We couldn't wait to see the next one. We laughed so hard we fell off the couch. The one that mocked "Iron Giant" was one of our favorites (I go... you stay... no following). Not since "Samurai Jack" has a writing team given us so much to laugh about in one series. When it suddenly came to a halt, we stopped watching Cartoon Network. The more recent shows don't even come close to the level of this wonderful series. I feel sorry for the cynical reviewer who sounded so high and mighty about animation. This isn't animation. These are cartoons. They make you laugh. We love Bugs Bunny. We love Elmer Fudd. We especially love Daffy Duck. May you long live to make us laugh because.... you're despicable! (spoken with a lisp)

A Christmas Carol (1951)

Dickens by any other name

[10/10 · 21 December 2008]

Christmas returns annually with its usual run of Christmas films… some are memorable, others survive a few years, while in the end, critics and public alike regard only a handful as classics… among these, "It's a wonderful life," "A Christmas Story," "White Christmas," "Charlie Brown Christmas," and "Miracle on 34th Street." Film studios have remade Charles Dickens' story of "A Christmas Carol" so many times, people often mistake one version for another.

The original story saved both the career of Dickens, down on his luck, and the holiday of Christmas, largely forgotten by the public of the 1830's. However, the moment publishers released the novel, the public clamored for more. Three years later, the play ran continuously all over London and the book went through six printings, resurrecting Dickens' reputation as a storyteller and the idea that Christmas should remind the public to help the poor and destitute. At this time, one in ten London funerals was a child, usually death by malnutrition or starvation in a city blessed with opulence. After the release of "A Christmas Carol," lawmakers strived to rid the community of workhouses and debtor's prisons.

In the Twentieth Century, the story struck studios as a waiting gold mine, starting in the silent era, having made no less than twenty-eight versions of the story since 1900. MGM released the first large production in 1938 with Reginald Owen as Ebenezer Scrooge. This version appalled the English, as MGM made major changes to the novel's story. Other studios produced similar 'cut' versions around the same time. However, it was producer George Minter trying to save a small studio in England named Renown Pictures, who persuaded writer Noel Langley to adapt the Dickens' novel into a screenplay. He had been friends with George Cole who lived next door to Alastair Sim, known for his comic roles. The pair just finished starring in a comedy film together when they came to audition for acting producer and director, Brian Hurst (Hurst demanded to see if Sims could do a 'serious' role). However, Minter ran the show at Renown Pictures and hired Sims on the spot (along with Cole as the younger Scrooge). Minter also hired Set Designer Ralph Brinton (later Oscar nominated for "Tom Jones") and cinema photographer, C. Pennington-Richards (who had a rather short tragic career). Richards went with a rather dark look on the film that added to the austere sets of Brinton. Sim took to the role of Scrooge with relish, painting a truly evil man whose dour expressions and stone reflection on his partner's death left audiences cold and surprised the comic actor pulled the part off so well.

Unfortunately, Minter's plans to debut the film at New York's Radio City Music Hall that Christmas turned disastrous when the hall's committee rejected the film as 'too dark' for America audiences. It played at a theater around the corner for three weeks, panned by critics and the American public. Minter quickly pulled the film back to England. However, the film ran to pack houses and rave reviews in England where it enjoyed a long run. During production, many famous people visited the set including Bette Davis and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr, along with Dickens' grandniece. She declared the film, "the only genuine representation of my great-uncle's work." The film then fell into obscurity and America audiences were largely surprised when it began to turn up on television around Christmas time. They had mostly seen the Reginald Owen or George C. Scott versions (Scott's being the least Scrooge-like with his 'I'll phone it in,' performance). As if discovering a long lost art treasure, critics changed their tune and America embraced the Alastair Sim version as the official "Scrooge." In 2007, VCI Home Video purchased the rights and went back to the original film negative to make a 'restored' version released last year (selling in stores this year for less than $15).

The restored "Scrooge" is wonderful to see with prolonged scenes and the opening fully restored (the hand pulling the book down from the shelf and so on). The blacks are blacker, the lines sharp, the artifact removed, and the original soundtrack restored without hiss. Alastair Sims and his miraculous transformation into the endearing beloved comic at the end is warmly embraced by English audiences annually as a true Christmas tradition. While we have our American films, such as "It's a wonderful life" and "White Christmas," Dickens' classic English tale gives us the story that saved Christmas and reminds us that this season is not simply a Christian holiday, but a human one as well. This is a time of year when we reach out to those less fortunate and offer some warmth and happiness, so that we may all enjoy life's blessings. If you bother to watch any film this holiday season, take the time to see the Alastair Sims' version (1951) of Charles Dickens' "Scrooge" in the restored edition, and may God bless us all, everyone.