jrc007 Reviews

Cries & Whispers (1972)

My first brush with Bergman

[30 May 2003]

It was a haunting and shattering film experience, as promised.

I've never before seen a Bergman film, however, judging by the praise awarded to "Cries and Whispers," I decided to try this one out first. And I couldn't have been more rewarded. The film, even though it clocked in at a short ninety-one minutes, I estimate less than half of those minutes contained dialogue. As Gloria Swanson put it in "Sunset Boulevard," they "had faces." And how they used them! The facial expressions and mannerisms the characters in this film used were breathtaking. Going from Liv Ullman's smug, teasing grin in her flashback scene with the doctor to Ingrid Thulin's anguish-cum-rhapsody in the scene with the broken class (that undoubtedly stays in the minds of all who see the film for one reason or another!) is truly incredible. Each character uses their body language to convey the meaning of their characters and their situations. In fact, I could have watched the film in Swedish without English subtitles and still have known perfectly well what was going on. The dialogue was truly superfluous and unnecessary. Combining the characters' body language with Bergman's masterful use of color to convey the personalities of the characters as well as their environment in general is something that (1) I've scarcely, if ever, seen used in a film before and (2) could not stop marvelling at its brilliance.

The performances were top notch. All of the performances by the four leading ladies were exceptional and perfect in every way. The homoeroticism that pervades the film is perfectly captured by the ladies in a manner that is not sexual, but rather something the farthest possible being from sexuality.

I do not even need to speak of Sven Nykvist's cinematography beyond that it is perfection incarnate.

I am now convinced that Bergman is a master, and I cannot wait to see another of his films! Sure, the film is depressing and certainly is not for those who think that "The Italian Job" is the best film of the year, however, for those who can just watch the relationships of the sisters unfold in all its splendor and anguish, this is truly a work of art rivalling those of any medium.

MY RATING: 10/10 (and I don't give tens lightly)

HIGHLIGHTS: Liv Ullmann, Harriet Andersson, Ingrid Thulin, Kari Sylwan, Sven Nykvist's cinematography, Bergman's use of color and his direction in general

The Great Ziegfeld (1936)

*Snore*...Oh, what was that again?

[24 December 2002]

Next time you have trouble sleeping, don't fumble in the medicine cabinet for sleep aids, just pop this into the VCR and off you'll be in minutes. This positively one of the most boring films I've ever seen. Every single minute of this film is so heavy and lumbering that you'd think little lead sinkers had been attached to the celluloid. The problem with this film is mainly the cast. Except for Luise Rainer, who was wonderful and one of the film's only good points, there is no charm at all. William Powell is irriatingly self-confident as Ziegfeld--not Ziegfeld's self confidence, mind you, it's his own big head there. Myrna Loy, who got second billing for very limited screen time, doesn't distinguish herself as Billie Burke, and makes you wonder why somebody so flamboyant as Ziegfeld would want to marry her. This film is so unberably top heavy that by intermission, you feel as if it should have fallen and been over already. That said, the musical numbers are spectacular. They were truly glimpses into the glamor of the past. The most notable is the one set to Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, right before the intermission. It is so archeytpically golden age Hollywood/Broadway that it'll knock your socks off. It truly defines the word spectacle. However, these little breaks in the boredom are not enough to make up for a truly uninteresting and tiresome film.

HIGHLIGHTS: Luise Rainer, musical numbers, seeing "The End" on the screen

RATING: 4/10

NOTES: -I believe that James Cagney or even Clark Gable would've made a far better Florez Ziegfeld than William Powell.

-Luise Rainer won the Oscar for Best Actress for this film, but it was really more of a supporting role IMO.

-This won the Oscar for Best Picture of 1936, but pales in comparison to other films from that year such as MODERN TIMES, MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN, and MY MAN GODFREY.

All in all, just don't waste your time (unless you're an insomniac!)

Deliverance (1972)

Creepy but good!

[9/10 · 23 December 2002]

When I first began to watch this film, I remember people saying that it was one of the most disturbing film's they'd ever seen. I beared that in mind while watching the beginning segments, yet I didn't see why they were so "disturbed" by this film. Was it just the rathe odd-looking inbred child? Was it the too-peaceful mountain setting? Was it the banjo music? I decided that I should just wait and see...and inevitably, I saw! The scene in the woods between Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, and the two homosexual mountain-folk was one of the creepiest scenes I've ever seen in any movie. Could any of you imagine yourselves canoeing downriver in the mountains and being confronted by two violent-minded hillbillies? Just imagining myself in that situation makes me cringe. As the film progresses and the characters' plights become more and more life-threatening, I became more and more intrigued. It was fascinating how John Boorman used settings that reflected what was happening in the story, and the acting (especially Jon Voight) was fantastic. This truly is one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen, but it's a kind of disturbance that I'd recommend to all; I guarantee you'll never hear "Dueling Banjoes" again without thinking of DELIVERANCE!

HIGHLIGHTS: "Dueling Banjoes"; the cool, detached cinematography; the infamous scene in the woods; Jon Voight; the rock climb; the swim to safety.

RATING: 8/10

NOTES: -Definitely deserved to be nominated for Best Picture in 1972! -Probably John Boorman's best and best-known film. -Not for the faint of heart, so proceed with caution!

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (1966)

Tragedy Tonight!

[3 October 2002]

This movie, I hate to say, is a waste of time. It's boring, its feeling of length belies its running time, and it's JUST NOT INTERESTING!

Zero Mostel, who I normally love, plays his usual self as Pseudolys and Jack Gilford, far from his excellent performance in SAVE THE TIGER, is just ho-hum.

Considering this film was made in the heyday of the revival of the musical, this film pales in comparison to THE SOUND OF MUSIC, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, or CABARET. See one of those instead.

The 74th Annual Academy Awards (2002 TV Special)

Just what I think.

[15 July 2002]

Here's my opinion on what should have won:

Best Picture: A Beautiful Mind

Best Director: Robert Altman (Gosford Park)

Best Actor: Russell Crowe (A Beautiful Mind)

Best Actress: Sissy Spacek (In the Bedroom)

Best Supporting Actor: Ben Kingsley (Sexy Beast)

Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind) OR Helen Mirren (Gosford Park)

That's just my opinion, though.

The 73rd Annual Academy Awards (2001 TV Special)

What I think should've won...

[15 July 2002]

Here's what I think should've won this time:

Best Picture: Traffic

Best Director: Ridley Scott (Gladiator)

Best Actor: Tom Hanks (Cast Away)

Best Actress: Ellen Burstyn (Requiem for a Dream)

Best Supporting Actor: Albert Finney (Erin Brockovich)

Best Supporting Actress: Marcia Gay Harden (Pollock)

The Deer Hunter (1978)

What's the big deal?

[1/10 · 27 June 2002]

Spoilers are possible, so proceed at your own risk.

I watched THE DEER HUNTER for the first time last night. I was interested in seeing it because of its status as Best Picture of 1978. After sitting through the three hours, I had one question in mind: what's the big deal?

This film, so widely praised in the annals of film history, seems to have no reason to support this praise. The story is drawn out, the characters lack depth (save Christopher Walken) and you cannot identify with them. Robert De Niro, who I usually like very much, does not give his usual bravura performance we're used to, as in RAGING BULL, TAXI DRIVER, and THE KING OF COMEDY. He seems to be just going through the motions. Cimino's direction lacks a certain style that Scorsese, Coppola, and other modern-era directors so painstakingly thread through the film. The acting beside De Niro is stale (with the exception of Walken, who can be called about "average.")

The first hour, while thought to be the highlight of the film, is still too long and causes even the most intent viewer to look at his or her watch once or twice before the men go to Vietnam.

The film had an interesting idea behind it: divide a film into thirds and have the first third show the life of Pennsylvania steel-workers, the second third show their ordeals in Vietnam, and the third show how they changed when they came home.

The problem I thought was this structure was that during the last third, the characters (except De Niro) hadn't changed greatly (or at all) from the first half! They still engage in the same adolescent horseplay and do not seem a bit stirred by their experiences in Vietnam. Christopher Walken is the only exception to this, and his reintroduction into the film near the three hour mark was too drawn out to achieve the artistic status that Cimino was trying to achieve.

There was too much Russian roulette! If I had to watch one more game of Russian roulette, I was going to shoot MYSELF! (Just kidding). It was too much, though. These scenes in Vietnam involving this deadly game were too overdramatic and drawn out.

Although this wasn't the worst of the Best Pictures (that honor goes to GIGI, AN AMERICAN IN PARIS, and the ones from the late 20s and early 30s), it is only middle of the road as far as Vietnam movies are concerned, as it suffers in comparison to FULL METAL JACKET and especially APOCALYPSE NOW, but is superior to PLATOON and BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY.

My rating: 4/10 (That's being generous).

Highlights: None that stand out.

Chinatown (1974)

The best screenplay ever written

[10/10 · 27 June 2002]

When thinking of film noir, what comes to mind? THE BIG SLEEP, DOUBLE INDEMNITY, THE THIRD MAN, even L.A. CONFIDENTIAL? How about 1974's CHINATOWN? In my opinion, this is among the best noir films of all time, with those mentioned before. CHINATOWN is a nearly perfect film. The screenplay, by master of the medium Robert Towne is, in my opinion, the best ever written. It is so full of detail, characterization, plot, tone, style, and overall punch, and the fact that it is flawles makes it the best ever written. In fact, it is so flawless that it is used to teach amateur screenwriters how to write.

The film itself is also nearly perfect. The acting from Nicholson and Dunaway could not have been better, nor the directing by Roman Polanski. John Huston was very interesting in his small role as well.

Technically, the movie is brilliant. The cinematography by John A. Alonzo is beautiful and its bright colors strongly contradict the usual film noir fare of shadows and dark alleys. Jerry Goldsmith's score is haunting and you'll find yourself whistling it all day after you've seen the film (how it didn't win Best Score (Oscar) of 1974 is beyond me).

I haven't much else to say about this film, except that I strongly recommend seeing it.

My rating: 10/10.

Highlights: The whole film (especially Nicholson, Dunaway, Huston, Goldsmith's score, Alonzo's cinematography, Polanski's direction and ROBERT TOWNE'S SCREENPLAY!)

My Fair Lady (1964)

Has its good and bad points.

[10/10 · 20 June 2002]

There may be some inadvertent spoilers in here, so proceed with caution.

I normally dislike Lerner/Loewe musicals (especially GIGI) because of their slow pace, forgetful songs, wooden acting, and speak-singing. In the case of 1964's MY FAIR LADY, some of these elements return, but others thankfully do not.

I'll comment on the bad first, to save the best for last.

Rex Harrison was the major drawback of the film. Yes, he won the Oscar for Best Actor for this, but how? If the delightful and radiant Audrey Hepburn was passed over (and not even nominated at that!) for Julie Andrews in MARY POPPINS of all things, how did Harrison manage? How did he beat out Peter Sellers for DR. STRANGELOVE? He's irritating the whole way through, and he screams all of his lines as if he were stranded on a tarmac at La Guardia. He did not sing his songs, but rather spoke them quickly, a Lerner/Loewe trademark as in AN AMERICAN IN PARIS and GIGI as well.

Wilfrid Hyde-White's character of Pickering was utterly pointless! Whatever Rex Harrison demanded, he followed right along without qualm. The musical would've have been almost exactly the same without him. He was such a follower! Also, if Eliza Doolittle said "I'm a good girl, I am!" one more time, I was going to reach through the television and slap her. The length of the film also detracted. If it were, say, forty-five minutes shorter, it would've been improved greatly.

Now the good.

Two simple words: AUDREY HEPBURN.

Need I say more?

Also good were the songs WOULDN'T IT BE LOVELY, WHY CAN'T THE ENGLISH, WITH A LITTLE BIT OF LUCK, THE RAIN IN SPAIN, and GET ME TO THE CHURCH ON TIME. Stanley Holloway was very good in his role as Eliza's drunk old father. George Cukor did a good job directing this film, and was basically his last great film before his death 19 years later.

I don't know if this really deserved Best Picture over DR. STRANGELOVE, but it was an entertaining film, and I'd recommend it. 7/10.

Highlights: AUDREY, the songs mentioned above, Stanley Holloway.

Gigi (1958)

Not one of the better musicals I've seen.

[3/10 · 20 June 2002]

When compared to other film musicals such as FIDDLER ON THE ROOF and WEST SIDE STORY, you can see how poor this film actually is. The fact that the stage musical the film is based on is weak to begin with, there isn't much hope left for the film itself.

There are no catchy tunes, and the big number of the piece, THE NIGHT THEY INVENTED CHAMPAGNE, is uninteresting and lacks the charisma of other showstoppers in other musicals such as IF I WERE A RICH MAN, MARIA, or FOOD GLORIOUS FOOD.

I cannot say anything good about Leslie Caron. She is flat, dull, and does not evoke any kind of caring for her from the audience. Audrey Hepburn played the role of Gigi on the stage, and although I was not alive at the time to see this, I am sure that she could run circles around Caron.

Louis Jourdan is not much of an actor and he seems to old to be in this role. Maurice Chevalier's character is annoying and only pops in when the characters have nothing else to do. If he sang LITTLE GIRLS one more time, I was going to turn off the movie!

Vincente Minelli's direction was nothing special. How he won the Academy Award for this piece is mindboggling. If he didn't win for the superior AN AMERICAN IN PARIS, why this?

The cinematography is somewhat nice, however, and at times even pleasant to look at. This is probably one of the only good aspects of this film.

I just couldn't get into this film, and far better examples of films from 1958 are VERTIGO, SEPARATE TABLES, and RUN SILENT RUN DEEP.

Highligths (of which there are few): the cinematography, seeing the end credits come up at last!

Maybe if Hepburn were cast instead of Caron, this could be a much better film. 3/10.

Cabaret (1972)

Just so-so.

[6/10 · 19 June 2002]

First of all, I can never cease to wonder how Bob Fosse beat FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA (for THE GODFATHER) for Best Director in 1973. It's a travesty, and Academy voters usually put into play politics more than actual deserve when making decisions (ie how did SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE beat SAVING PRIVATE RYAN for Best Picture in '99?)

I thought the songs were excellent, and I applaud Bob Fosse's choice to exclude all songs (except TOMORROW BELONGS TO ME-which I must say was frightening in its context) that didn't take place in the Kit Kat Club. It always seems unnatural when a character bursts into song cooking dinner or reading a book.

The songs themselves were also of top quality, especially WILKOMMEN, CABARET, and MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GO 'ROUND. They are executed with energy comparable to a stage production and the arrangements were superb. Fosse's choreography, fast-paced cinematography, and lighting almost transports the viewer to Broadway, combined with the "stage acting" method of over-exaggeration of Joel Grey.

Liza Minelli was just okay. She never impressed me very much, especially because of her drug habits, and her haircut and makeup were very annoying and distracting. Michael York is not much of an actor and his character would've been better played by Michael Caine or Alec McCowen. Marisa Berenson was good though, too bad she didn't do much else after this besides Kubrick's BARRY LYNDON. Helmut Griem was also pleasant to watch, albeit his part was too small (he is introduced almost an hour into the film and disappears about forty minutes later and never resurfaces).

Geoffrey Unsworth's cinematography was excellent, although not as good as Gordon Willis's for THE GODFATHER the same year.

As Broadway musicals turned films, this one is just so-so. It lacks the bravura of FIDDLER ON THE ROOF and WEST SIDE STORY but is far superior to THE MUSIC MAN and GIGI. I suppose no Broadway musical can be as good on stage, and this film certainly does nothing to prove this theory wrong.

In spite of these negative comments, I found the film to be enjoyable, although it could've been shortened by 20 minutes, and if released only a year later, it would've deserved the Oscars it won, plus Best Picture over THE STING and its director George Roy Hill, but it can't hold a candle to THE GODFATHER.

It was pleasant, but nothing great. I rate it at about middle-of-the-road at 5 or 6 out of 10.

Highlights: CABARET, WILKOMMEN, MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GO 'ROUND, TOMORROW BELONGS TO ME, Kit Kat Club scenes camerawork and choreography, Marisa Berenson, and Helmut Griem.

I wouldn't strongly recommend it to anyone except devout Fosse or Minelli fans and musical lovers, but I would suggest watching it if you have nothing else to do.

Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)

The best performance of the 1960s.

[10/10 · 9 February 2002]

This film easily has the claim to the best performance of the 1960s, and it is of course Audrey Hepburn, perpetually lovely, as Holly Golightly. Although neither she nor the film won no major awards, it is still the best. The fact that Sophia Loren won the Academy Award for Best Actress in 1961 (for "La Ciociara") still to this day serves to incense me as one of the grossest overlooks in AMPAS history.

Aside from that, the film shines, and on many levels as well. At times it is an upbeat, light comedic romance; while other times it is a depressing, cynical outlook on loneliness. The balance between the two couldn't have been presented better as they are here.

George Peppard, not the shining beacon of the film, still manages to put in a good performance, as do Patricia Neal, Buddy Ebsen, Mickey Rooney, Villalonga, and Martin Balsam.

The music is superb, easily among Mancini's best (along with "Charade", "Wait Until Dark", "Days of Wine and Roses", and of course "The Pink Panther." "Moon River" is the perfect song for the film and within itself presents the balance described above. Interestingly enough, Audrey Hepburn (whose major talents definitely do not include singing) perfectly sings this song, better than any other adaptation that has been made, especially better than that vulgar Andy Williams adaptation. She just seems to capture the essence of it.

Anyway, this film is a must see, and after you do see it, you will agree with me that it is one of the worst Academy oversights ever.

The Trouble with Harry (1955)

Scenic Overlook

[18 June 2001]

MAY CONTAIN UNINTENTIONAL SPOILERS. PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK.

THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY is definitely among my favorite Hitchcocks of all time. So many elements combined to make a truly visual and auditory feast.

First of all, my favorite aspect of this film is the lush, vibrant, colorful autumn cinematography, which was shot in Barre, Vermont. This adds a breathtaking background to the hilarities which ensue. The movie wouldn't have been quite so memorable had it not been for the use of this setting. Adding to this wonderful scenery is Bernard Herrmann's exceptional score. The music enhances the background as it also does to the story. The excellent use of strings highlights the score, which is underscored by brass and woodwinds. One of Herrmann's best that deserves to be placed in the same ranks as PSYCHO, VERTIGO, and NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Next comes the story and dialog. Absolutely brilliant. John Michael Hayes in his third collaboration with Hitchcock adds smart witticisms interwoven with Hitchcock's trademark macabre black comedy to create a masterpiece script, highlighted with unique characters and original dialogs. Also, watch for an excellent twist in the surprise ending! The acting is superb. In her first role, Shirley MacLaine does something far from TERMS OF ENDEARMENT in brining to life the carefree Jennifer Rogers, a lemonade-loving small-town mother. Also in the cast are John Forsythe (as a struggling artist more interested in Jennifer than making a sale,) Mildred Natwick playing the charming, young-spirited Miss Gravely, and finally the best of them all, Edmund Gwenn as the kind-hearted Captain Wiles.

All in all, many, many excellent elements combine to make THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY a very memorable (and lesser-known) Hitchcock classic. If you like black comedy with a light twist, you must see THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY.

Torn Curtain (1966)

A mixed bag...

[21 May 2001]

Unintentional spoilers possible. Read at your own risk.

This 1966 Paul Newman-Julie Andrews film, directed by none other than the Master, Alfred Hitchcock, is, for me, quite a mixed bag.

First, I will cover the bad points before I get to the good. The major con to this movie is Julie Andrews. I normally like her a lot-in films like THE SOUND OF MUSIC, 10, and VICTOR-VICTORIA, but this film does not suit her acting style, causing her to become unbelievable, and the scenes involving Lila Kedrova as Countess Kuchinska were grotesque and pointless in this otherwise emotionally-devoid film. Also, John Addison's score does not add anything at all to the film, in fact it takes away. Bernard Herrmann's was far more suitable. Now onto the pros. My favorite scene, of course, is the murder of Gromek in the farmhouse outside Berlin. Other favorites include: The pursuit through the Museum zu Berlin, the discovering of Gromek's body and motorcycle, and the party scene in Leipzig. All in all this film's pros outweigh the cons, but it just doesn't live up to Hitchcock's other works. This film is particularly gray, especially depicted in the scene when Armstrong, Sherman, Gromek, and Manfred are driving from the Airport to Berlin, the transition from evening to morning at the Hotel Berlin, the bus pursuit through the German countryside, and all the scenes in Leipzig.

I recommend this film to those who want to experience other types of Hitchcock films.

Cape Fear (1991)

It has its pros and cons

[24 March 2001]

CAPE FEAR is a very interesting film. On one hand, you have one of the best thrillers ever made with a genius, Scorsese, behind the camera. On the other hand, you have some elements blown entirely out of proportion. Although I will admit that the pros in this movie outweigh the cons.

First, I must compliment Thelma Schoonmaker for her outstanding editing (as per usual,) and the Freddie Francis-Martin Scorsese cinematography team. I love Scorsese's use of the stacatto camera movements and zoom ins and outs. Also, the long shots and steadicams are also commendable.

The music, although originally by Hitchcock's own Bernard Herrmann, fails to live up to some of Herrmann's other scores such as PSYCHO, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, VERTIGO, CITIZEN KANE, or JANE EYRE. Though it is not his worst, and Elmer Bernstein has done well arranging it to this remake.

The acting. The grades are given on a scale of one to five.

Robert De Niro as Max Cady 3, Nick Nolte as Samuel Bowden 4, Jessica Lange as Leigh Bowden 4, Juliette Lewis as Danielle Bowden 5, Joe Don Baker as Claude Kersek 3, Robert Mitchum as Lieutenant Elgart 2, Gregory Peck as Lee Heller 2, Martin Balsam as the Judge 3, Fred Dalton Thompson as Tom Broadbent 3, Illeana Douglas as Lori Davis 3, & Zully Montero as Graciela 2

Need I say more?

The only poor part of the film, in my opinion, is the ending. Once the Bowdens arrive at Cape Fear, the film just slips in to an unbelievable, over-blown ending that basically ruins the rest of the movie. It just doesn't seem to end and the climax was very disappointing. Instead of building suspense and having a surprise twist, which very well could've happened, Strick and Scorsese decided to have a special effects enhanced showdown on the Cape Fear River. I thought that this was one of the only pitfalls of the film. Although, it was a major part, I still enjoyed the rest of the film.

It's not nearly as good as GOODFELLAS, but it's far better than THE AGE OF INNOCENCE.

3 stars out of 5.

The Shining (1980)

The most artistic horror film ever made.

[27 September 2000]

THE SHINING (1980) [not to be confused with the horrid remake in 1997, which in itself should have been an insult to Kubrick,] can be described in many ways.

To start off with one of the most crucial details, one must realize that they are watching a Stanley Kubrick film. What characterizes a Stanley Kubrick film?, one might ask. Well, that's not easy to say, but a "Kubrickian" film encompasses a particular genre being advanced by pioneering cinematography, stunning visuals, strong (and sometimes explicit) dialogue, and a high level of metaphoric art and symbolism. One cannot watch a Kubrick film with a relaxed mind and expect to be entertained. In order to fully enjoy and comprehend a film by Stanley Kubrick, it is imperative to think. Go below the surface of what you see on the screen and find a metaphor or symbolism that each shot represents. THE SHINING is a perfect example of this idealogy. One must rememember that in a Kubrick film, each shot means something.

Second, this film is very reliant on themes and imagery to support these themes. Foremost is the pertinent theme of reflections. Mirrors enhance reflections and are key elements in the movie. It is through a mirror that we watch Jack eat his breakfast, not be able to see Grady (but be able to see Jack at the same time,) Danny watches a mirror at the beginning of the film while he shines, and it is mirrors that finally reveal the true meaning of the phrase "redrum." Reflections play a major role in the unfolding of the story. From using them to see that Grady is a ghost, to finding Jack's true intentions.

The acting in this film is also superb. Jack Nicholson (as usual) in top form and to be able to believe how great he was in this movie, you'd have to see it for yourself.

Lastly, the cinematography in THE SHINING is breathtaking. From the credit sequence following Jack through the Rockies, to the renown steadicam of Danny on his tricycle, to the tracking shots through the maze, I have rarely seen better camera-work.

There are many more elements to this film, more than I could write in this comment with a maximum of a mere 1000 words. I'm sure that if you see this movie, and you're ready to think and be scared by plot devices such as tension, climate, atmosphere, depth, color, and symbolism (and not get cheap scares from computerized images of green goblins in the miniseries,) THE SHINING is the movie for you.

Marnie (1964)

Hitchcock's Last Great Film, and it was great!

[7 May 2000]

CAUTION: SPOILER!!! READ ON AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This 1964 Hitchcock film has to be his last great film out of his ten greatest films (Shadow of a Doubt, The 39 Steps, Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho, The Birds, Marnie, Notorious, Rope, North By Northwest.) It has everything!!! It has bright colors, great acting, wonderful art direction, and most important a clever plot and witty dialog.

The film begins with Bernard Herrmann's best Hitchcock score besides only Vertigo and North By Northwest, it then follows with Sidney Strutt (MARTIN GABEL) explaining how and who robbed nearly $10,000 from him. He then describes the girl to Mark Rutland (SEAN CONNERY,) a client of his from Philadelphia. The camera cuts to a hotel while jet-black haired Marion Holland (TIPPI HEDREN) and a hotel porter carries her bags out, during this is Hitchcock's cameo (he's coming out of his hotel room, looking guilty.) Next, Marion dyes her hair blonde and visits her horse, Forio at some stables. She then reveals that her true name is Marnie Edgar. She has several identities, actually, including Marion Holland, Marnie Edgar, Mary Taylor, and one more that escapes me for the moment.

She then goes to visit her mother (LOUISE LATHAM,) who lives in Baltimore.

She then goes to Philadelphia, where she uses her Mary Taylor alias and gets a job at Rutland & Co., for Mark Rutland. Mark becomes attracted to Mary (or should I say Marnie) until she steals from him as well. He goes and gets her and she reveals his true identity to him. He then marries her, takes her on a South Pacific honeymoon cruise, fights with her, then rapes her. He brings her back, where his sister-in-law Lil Mannering (DIANE BAKER) who also loves mark opts to make trouble for Marnie. In the end, Lil tells Strutt where Marnie is. Strutt comes out to Philadelphia and Mark stops him from pressing charges. In the end, Marnie tries to steal from Mark again after having to shoot Forio because Lil is chasing her on her horse. Mark takes Marnie to Baltimore to Marnie's mother's house to find out what's wrong with Marnie. He finds out. They then exit the house and Bernard Herrmann's score comes back with the end credits.

Although this is a very brief synopsis, it can help you get a feel for the movie. If you like movies you can think about, this Hitchcock masterwork is a definite must-see.

ABC Weekend Specials: The Gold Bug (1980) Season 3, Episode 8

an interesting film

[1 April 2000]

THE GOLD BUG is an interesting film. One of the better film adaptations of Poe's books. Geoffrey Holder is extraordinarily eerie in his role of Jupiter and Anthony Michael Hall is good as the boy. This movie was very eerie and deserved more recognition because of the unique atmosphere it creates. A lazy Sunday afternoon movie. 2 1/2 out of 5.

The Shining (1997)

Nothing can even come within 5000 miles of Kubrick's version

[18 February 2000]

This TV version of Stephen King's THE SHINING was absolutely HORRIBLE, TERRIBLE, ATROCIOUS, IRRITATING, UNREALISTIC, TAME, POINTLESS, AND A SHAME TO ALL OF THE TRUE FANS OF THE ORIGINAL KUBRICK FILM. First of all, you can't remake Kubrick justifiably or you certainly can't outdo Kubrick. That's just impossible. Let's just get past that right off the bat. This version was a whopping six hours. Five hours of nothing and about one hour of material pertaining to the plot. Who cares about Danny getting stung by some bees? Who cares about Jack suing the Bug Bomb company? I know I don't. Who wants to sit around and see Jack take pictures of the bee stings on Danny's arm? That's just filler! Another thing, in Kubrick's movie, Jack did not abuse Danny daily. Not even on-screen. In the TV version, it seems like every 20 minutes it was "Danny, come take your medicine." That's no way to make a movie. I realize that many people like this movie, but I certainly believe that any person who believes that this version is better than Kubrick's 1980 masterpiece, they are completely and undeniably mistaken. Not to mention a bit daffy. Anyway, that's just the way that I feel. If some uneducated person in Nicaragua believes that this version is better than Kubrick's than so be it. But here in America where we are at a pinnacle of knowledge, I can't see how anyone can actually make the assumption that this boring, idiotic 6 hour long gravy-train is superior to a STANLEY KUBRICK FILM.

Gone with the Wind (1939)

The First Epic

[10/10 · 23 January 2000]

I believe that GONE WITH THE WIND is the first epic movie. David O. Selznick's most memorable picture has all of the elements that make up an unforgettable classic. There is the beauty of love, the agony of war, the glimmer of hope, not to mention the lush portrait of the old south. Vivien Leigh was adorable as the spoiled and outgoing Scarlett O'Hara. Clark Gable was wonderful as the cold ex-POW Rhett Butler. My favorite character however, was Hattie McDonald as Mammy. She was great! I suggest that everybody see this movie. The only drawback is that, at 3 hours and 55 minutes, it is QUITE lengthy on its set of two video tapes.

An almost perfect picture.

School Ties (1992)

A great film about an awful subject

[11 November 1999]

The film starts out with David Green (BRENDAN FRASER) fighting with an Anti-Semite in Scranton, PA. After the fight, Green gets on the bus to go to a fancy Catholic school in Massachusetts. Even though he is Jewish, he is going there to get a football scholarship to get into Harvard University. When Green gets there, he is almost immediately accepted. He rooms with Chris Reece (CHRIS O'DONNELL) and takes Charles Dillon's (MATT DAMON) place on the football team. Dillon gets jealous and even more envious when his girl, Sally (AMY LOCANE) decides to go out with Green. After hearing one of his father's friends talking about Green being Jewish, Dillon decides to take revenge. During a shower scene, in which most of the students are nude, Dillon cracks a joke about Green's Judaism and a fight ensues. From then on, Dillon and his friends make life terrible for Green. They put up a sheet with a swastika and a reading of "Go Home Jew" written in red ink over Green's bed. They also commit several other Anti-Semitic acts. >

This was a wonderful film depicting the true horrors that Jews went through at a time when Anti-Semitism flourished. Matt Damon is a great actor, showing how many sides he can have. He was absolutely despicable in SCHOOL TIES, however, he was a hero in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Brendan Fraser, although not always believable due to his GEORGE OF THE JUNGLE antics, turned in a superb performance as David Green. The only performance that I was disappointed in was that of Chris O'Donnel. He had almost no part of the story and all he did was submit to Dillon's pranks. Also, the "shower scene" (no, not the one from PSYCHO) was totally unnecessary. Dillon and Green could have duked it out anywhere else and I wouldn't have had to see Matt Damon's ass. I give this film an 8 out of 10.

Frenzy (1972)

A film of contrasts

[30 October 1999]

FRENZY is a film of contrasts. Alfred Hitchcock, although not at his pinnacle, does show off what an excellent film maker that he is.

This movie has three sides. When Bob Rusk (BARRY FOSTER) murders Brenda Blaney (ANNA MASSEY), Hitchcock shows his violent, graphic side. When the camera tracks up the stairs with Rusk and Babs Milligan (BARBARA LEIGH-HUNT), and tracks back down before Rusk murders her, that shows Hitchcock's fearful side. When Rusk tries to get his tie pin back from Babs's corpse, that shows Hitchcock's comedic side.

This movie is a must see!