jnorman1 Reviews

Straight-Jacket (2004)

Fun, smart, spoof of closeted 50s Hollywood

[8/10 · 27 August 2005]

I really enjoyed this film. It was a fun, witty, and fresh look at 50s Hollywood. The fact that it deals with gay characters aside, it has a fun, but strong message about the extent of how far McCarthy era probes went to play on public fears. This time it's dished right back to the fear-mongers.

The movie is shot on high-color film stock that makes it feel more like a 50s Technicolor feature. The characters are over-the-top and the sets are "fabulous." On the technical side, this movie has several long single-shot scenes that make it feel more like a 50s-era movie. I hear that they were equally difficult for the actors and crew to get get a good take. Most movie takes today are only seconds long with different camera takes strung together to make a scene. In Straight-Jacket, they pan the camera to make a very long, stage-like scene.

The humor of the film is very smart & witty. I always like a comedy where secondary & minor characters are used to carry the comedy while the main characters carry more of a straight plot. In this film, you can't wait for the next witty entanglement with either the butler (Michael Emerson) or the agent (Veronica Cartwright.) Of course, there are several on-going gags that lighten the serious message of the film.

Chilly Dogs (2001)

Could be a good kids movie, but spoiled with sexual content

[1/10 · 3 January 2004]

This movie starts out like a "Snow Dogs" knockoff, but quickly turns sour. It has a simple story line and predictable plot twists, but seems like it could be a fun kids movie. Pretty quickly, you discover that the movie is filled with sexual content, male crotch gags, constipation & fart gags, homophobic innuendo, and plain stupidity.

I have always liked Skeet Ulrich and Leslie Nielsen, but this movie is just plain bad! I just hope that no parent ever lets their kids watch this movie.

Less Than Zero (1987)

"The Robert Downey, Jr.: E! True Hollywood Story"

[6/10 · 30 November 2003]

I just saw this movie again after over a decade. I remembered the movie as being very stylized and the story being rather simple, but forgot about the acting except that I had wondered why Jami Gertz was cast as "Blair." She never seemed to be right for the part, but her career was hot at the time.

As I watched the movie, I remembered reading the book. I noticed that not only was Jami Gertz poorly cast, but also Andrew McCarthy as "Clay." Both of their performances are really out-of-step with the story and their characters' types from the book.

I remembered how much I disliked the character of Rip, played by James Spader. Watching it again, I have realized that his was the only worthy performance of the entire film. Even some of the extras were nervous or awkward when the camera pointed in their direction.

The screenplay is mostly in-line with the book except for the level of Julian's involvement in male prostitution. The screenplay, as well as the book, is very simplistic and the characters are poorly developed. Although the story only spans four days, we get to know very little about the characters and aren't really given much information about the falling out between Clay and Blair except that it has something to do with Julian.

The movie's style is the only residual value of the film. It is a testament to the sloth & greed of the 80s, but also the high style and the beginnings of the retro movement.

The moral of the story is all too common, but it is amazing that it was lost on Robert Downey, Jr. I used to think so much of him as an actor and only hope that he can overcome his addictions to contribute once again.

The House of Dies Drear (1984 TV Movie)

A good historical thriller for kids

[24 August 2003]

While I have not read the book and cannot comment on Sarah from London's remarks, I think that labeling a move as "Pretty bad" is pretty bad! This is a movie for kids and adults may laugh about the plot and characters, but it's for kids! My son enjoyed it and was not only entranced, but got an idea about how the Underground Railroad worked! How many kids movies actually teach them something that they probably won't learn in most schools?

Deep Blue Sea (1999)

Another lame "special effects"-only movie...

[1/10 · 10 August 2000]

Deep Blue Sea had some pretty good special effects, but had one of the worst & implausible stories since Twister. They had a couple of big name stars and wasted their talent. This is another production that shoots its wad on special effects and ignored plot & character development. This is unfortunately becoming typical fare for big-budget scifi movies. This movie and several others like it leave me wondering if Hollywood really thinks that the target audience (males 20s) can only comprehend special effects and have no interest in plot & characters. Come on! Can't the major studios do better than this?