dimplet Reviews

Maverick (1994)

A truly amazingly bad movie!

[3/10 · 20 August 2015]

This movie accomplishes something truly amazing: It starts out almost pretty good, with some semblance of the format of the original Maverick television series (1957). I started off thinking it might be a 7 rating movie, but every 10 minutes of so it gets a notch worse.

A good movie should make you want to watch it within the first 10 minutes -- 5 if it is done by a master. This movie makes you want to turn it off after the first 10 minutes -- 5 if you have a sensitive stomach. If that's the way you feel, my advice is trust your gut. This movie is a gold-plated piece of coprolite.

The greatness of the original Maverick series was in the classy, clever writing. Try watching another TV western from that era and you will see a lot of gunfighting, chases, cattle drives and covered wagon trains, ad nauseum. Maverick had a formula, and a lesson for life: appearances can be deceiving. But in this remake, the deceptions are glaringly obvious and not at all clever.

What James Garner is doing in this is not entirely clear, beyond the obvious window dressing. He never gets a chance to act. Back in the Fifties, Warner Brothers cheated him, and Garner left after two seasons with the help of a lawyer. Watching Warner so cluelessly bollixing this movie version, with Garner standing right there available for advice which surely was not sought, probably left Garner with some small satisfaction: There was only one James Garner as Bret Maverick, and Mel Gibson ain't even close.

Let me give you a clue, Mel: the secret to Garner's Maverick was in his voice more than his face. Garner had an incredible voice (try watching Maverick TOS with the picture off). Mel, you aren't even in the same league with Jack Kelly's Bart Maverick, which I thought was excellent. Kelly and Garner were a sort of Yin and Yang that balanced things out week to week.

This Warner movie makes Garner look like he is senile. To clear that up, just watch Space Cowboys, made six years later. Hmmm, I wonder what would have happened if Clint Eastwood had directed Maverick, the movie?

As I have tried to watch this over several days, it just keeps getting worse and worse and worse and worse. It's not just Mel's fault. I can't really blame Alfred Molina, who is a great actor, though I can't for the life of me figure out what his role is in this picture -- who is he and why does he hate Maverick?

I don't like Jodie Foster's cloying over-acting. I have no sympathy for her character, which is not how the original series played the women. Usually, Maverick helps out some lady in distress, though you aren't always sure who that is going to be. Here there is just one obnoxious woman, aside from the bizarre wagon train of ugly missionaries -- what's with that?

So the bulk of the blame must fall to the director, Richard Donner, and the writer, William Goldman. Sorry, Maverick is not Superman, nor Princess Bride, re-set in the wild West.

The Indians speaking in 21st century lingo was close to the last straw. Is this a remake of F Troop in disguise? As I say, it just keeps getting worse and worse. There is no integrity to the script; things just happen for no particular reason, aside from a cheap gag.

Gibson's Maverick doesn't think his way out of trouble, he just sort of stumbles along. Except for his super-human ninja-level fist fighting and Superman-level skill with a pistol. This is Maverick as a cartoon character super hero.

Well, I have watched 1 hour and 20 minutes of the movie, and my movie rating has gradually dropped from 7 to 3. I am afraid if I watch the last 40 minutes, my rating will be minus 1, which is not possible on IMDb.

If I were being paid to write this review for IMDb, I would grit my teeth, take an Alka Seltzer, and do my best to watch the whole thing. As I am not, I will cease this masochistic movie torture.

Let me give other viewers a bit of advice:

If you like this movie version of Maverick, you will love the original TV series F Troop.

If you liked the original TV series Maverick, don't bother with this movie. The only thing the two have in common is the title and the studio.

But do watch Support Your Local Sheriff. That is the closest thing to a Maverick movie, with some great supporting acting by Jack Elam and Bruce Dern, et. al. It is wonderful fun.

Red Tails (2012)

A fine film with a timely lesson

[8/10 · 15 January 2015]

Normally, I dread remakes --- and CGI. As I watched the opening scenes under the credits, and saw the overdone CGI, I cringed. I thought, this is like Star Wars does WWII. Then I saw George Lucas on the credits, and I realized it was.* And if anyone knows how to do sequels, it's Lucas.

Once it got going either the CGI became smoother, or I got used to it. What can you do -- you can't go blowing up a ton of vintage aircraft! The Tuskegee Airmen was noticeably hampered by a relatively small cast and number of aircraft in the air, which Red Tails' CGI rectified.

I thought Red Tails was an excellent retelling of the story that did honor to the original film, and to the actual airmen. The film established and developed the many distinct characters clearly, and made you actually feel for them. There was also a good sense of ambiance, in part because of Ridley Scott's script (I really liked the ambiance in his Three Kings).The acting was excellent, all round, without a single wrong note.

Compare this to the numerous faults of a parallel story: Memphis Belle - 1990. What bothered me especially was the anachronism, that it just didn't get the feel of the period right -- a real challenge with historical films. Yet Red Tails succeeds effortlessly, without gimmicks; the characters seem to fit the period.

The Red Tails storyline took a different path from the original film and brought in new elements, like the German prison camp and the German jet fighters, but also repeated some nice elements from the original. With so many Tuskegee airmen, there was probably material for several more hours. Lucas originally conceived of this as a trilogy, and began work before The Tuskegee Airmen was released.

There was some exciting flying action. I see complaints about exaggeration of the actual planes' performance capabilities, and here we get back to the CGI. But, it's Hollywood, and not a documentary, so you've got to suspend some disbelief, which isn't too difficult, since the Tuskegee airmen were among the best, so we know they must have done some pretty fancy flying. Quit whining, and get over it.

However, this isn't The Natural as fighter ace; bullets did rip through planes and hit pilots; planes crashed and buddies died. The CGI helped bring this home. I don't like gratuitous blood and gore, but here it brought a dose of reality to the story. Also, the musical score did a good job of complementing the action and heightening the emotions.

The only element I thought was a bit off was Lightning getting into the one-man brawl in the "white" officers's club, shortly after a date; a guy in love isn't usually so angry. But there was an historical element to it: trainees did get arrested for entering a white officers' club in Indiana. And the Little incident tied in nicely with the scene near the end of the movie.

I see some complaints about the portrayal of the Germans. What portrayal? A fighter pilot's face through the plane's canopy? The German prison camp wasn't unfair. However, the actual black pilot who was shot down was treated with considerable respect by the Germans, which wasn't shown in the film (he also didn't escape). But remember this is a George Lucas old fashioned Hollywood movie, with good guys (the Americans) and bad guys (the Germans). Don't like it? Don't start wars!

(I haven't read all the reviews, and have to assume there are also some complaints from the Brits about the film not giving the British credit for actually making the greater sacrifice in winning the war, which they do with every American WWII movie. And so, on behalf of my countrymen, I would like to apologize for America winning the war. It won't happen again.)

I was surprised by the American bombing mission over Berlin so late in the war, but I confused it with the British bombing of Berlin way back around 1940 or 41, I think. NPR has a piece about a Tuskeegee Airmen reunion on the 2011 anniversary of the bombing run with interviews, and several other related stories and photos.

Red Tails is a very good film, and it's a very good story. The Tuskegee airmen did the right thing in the face of incredible pressure and adversity. By the end of the war, they had earned the respect of their peers. And they were recognized by history for their truly noble deeds, a little late, but at least for many, within their lifetimes. NPR calls them "rock stars of American history."

As such, they provide a lesson for all of us, black or white or whatever, and especially young people: Do what's right, without expecting to be rewarded or even recognized. And, eventually, right will win out. In the current state of the world, with so much divisiveness and negativity, it is a timely lesson.

--

* Actually, according to Wikipedia, it's the other way around: Star Wars action was based on actually footage of WWII dogfights.

• At the very end of the very copious credits I noticed something surprising: "Additional photography shot on the Canon 5D and 7D" -- consumer DSLRs. I wonder what scenes? Perhaps aboard planes?

Perhaps it wasn't just the CGI that bothered me. The whole film was shot on digital cameras, and, ironically, the imperfections of film look more real to me. To me, the perfection of digital looks too good to be true.

The Tuskegee Airmen (1995 TV Movie)

Historical fiction by a real Tuskegee Airman

[7/10 · 11 January 2015]

There was a time when I had never heard of the Tuskegee Airmen, but that was long ago, before this movie came out 20 years ago. I knew the basic facts from various sources, so the movie held no big surprises. But for those unfamiliar with the story, it will come as a revelation.

The movie repeats the myth that no bombers were lost to enemy aircraft while being escorted by the Tuskegee Airmen. At the time, 1995, this was still believed to be true. But around 2004-2007, studies found 27 bombers were, in fact lost, still well below the average of 46 by comparable P-51 fighter groups.

More astonishing to me is that they took on the new German ME 262 jet fighters and the ME 163 Komet rocket-powered fighters in a raid over Germany, shooting down three jets in one day! Now that would have been an exciting scene for the movie.

I've been reading a book on the history of WWII, "Roosevelt's Centurions," and the movie's presentation of the issue of racism in the military seems to get the balance about right. It is so sad to look back upon the racial segregation in the American military in WWII, given we were fighting fascists who were racists. The movie makes this point well, especially with the accurate point of the preferential treatment of German POWs. But our Allies were often even more racist in their treatment toward black GIs overseas, so it was not as easy to solve as it might appear in hindsight.

One of the interesting consequences of segregation was that the Army trained 16,000 black support personnel, along with black medical personnel, gunners and navigators. So it provided a skilled foundation for later military desegregation, ordered by President Truman in 1948.

Roosevelt was constrained by political considerations, but his wife was not. Eleanor was quite a remarkable lady. Actually, during a visit to the Tuskegee Institute, she flew with the civilian flight instructor, C. Alfred "Chief" Anderson, not one of the recruits. (There's a photo of the two on Wikipedia.)

Wikipedia: "In 1940, Anderson was recruited by the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, to serve as the Chief Civilian Flight Instructor for its new program to train black pilots." This might explain the mystery of why the Army located this program in the Deep South. It sounds like the Institute was anticipating the war.

Anderson had solid credentials: He created the Civilian Pilot Training for Howard University, Washington, D.C. in the late Thirties. Ironically, Anderson's flight instructor was the German-born Ernest H. Buehl, Sr. "Under Buehl's tutelage and personal insistence, in February 1932, Anderson became the first African American to receive an air transport pilot's license from the Civil Aeronautics Administration."

The Tuskegee Airmen, like some other HBO historical movies -- Warm Springs and Truman -- is entertaining and thought provoking. It is historical fiction, not a documentary, but it seems to portray the historical period accurately. The original story was written by Captain Robert W. Williams, the fellow from Ottumwa, Iowa, who corresponded to Hannibal Lee, played by Laurence Fishburne. Aside from Col. Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., all the other characters are composites.

Here is the tally of sacrifice by the Tuskegee Airmen, from Wikipedia:

In all, 992 pilots were trained in Tuskegee from 1941 to 1946. 355 were deployed overseas, and 84 lost their lives in accidents or combat. The toll included 68 pilots killed in action or accidents, 12 killed in training and non-combat missions and 32 captured as prisoners of war.

We owe all of the Tuskegee Airmen a debt of gratitude.

Pursuit of the Graf Spee (1956)

What Sink the Bismark! could have been!

[9/10 · 27 July 2014]

I really, truly enjoyed watching this film, which I hadn't ever heard of, except for references in To Sink the Bismark!. This, indeed, is what the Bismark! could have been.

I see that some viewers didn't like it, and found the British officers standing around on the deck doing nothing boring. I thought it was amusing. What do you expect them to do on the open sea, hour after hour, day after day?

What was great about this movie was that it was not predictable, not formulaic and jingoistic like Bismark! It was surprisingly modern in its values and acting, a bit like Three Kings.

The weak spot was perhaps the portrayal of the South Americans in the background during the radio broadcasts, but I think this was intended to display the absurdity of the carnival atmosphere. Speaking of which, it reminded me strongly of the opening of Woody Allen's Bananans, where television is broadcasting live the assassination of a banana republic dictator, who was the only one not in on the secret. Could this be the inspiration?

Apparently, the movie portrays the key players accurately, and there were seamen involved who were advisers to the film - I think including Capt. Dove.

What makes this movie shine is the intriguing characters, most of all Captain Langsdorff. What was he thinking, what were his deep motives?

Spoiler alert.

The ending brings this into sharp contrast, though the movie's ending leaves things open, though the historical ending fills in this gap. We are left to ponder why he did what he did. I have my own theories, and I think that deep down, he did not want to return to Nazi Germany, and wanted to spare his crew from this.

I strongly suggest watching this together with Bismark! They have similar themes. In the 50s and early 60s, part of British cinema was extremely conservative, politically and cinematically, and was way, way behind the times, creatively. Bismark! exemplifies that, and looks more like a 1942 movie than 1960.

The British and American viewing office didn't complain. But from today's perspective, Bismark! was a missed opportunity at a great film, a potential demonstrated years earlier by the Graf Spee.

Compared to the Graf Spee, Bismark! is hopelessly boring but good for you, much like oatmeal.

I think Graf Spee holds up very well by modern standards of acting and directing. It is also a fitting memorial to Captain Langsdorff, who acted, in the end, honorably.

Sink the Bismarck! (1960)

Bismark sunk by British bias, major inaccuracies, muddled story

[6/10 · 26 July 2014]

The behemoth Bismark epitomizes the folly of German thinking during WWII. Build the biggest battleship with guns that could shoot farther than the enemy's and Germany could knock them out before they could touch the Bismark. Sounds great, in theory, but the idea was one war too late. It would have worked in WWI, but by WWII there were aircraft capable of knocking out ships.

The biplanes and flying boats used against Bismark are antediluvian compared to the aircraft carrier planes used later in the war, and yet the Bismark couldn't knock them out of the sky. What's wrong with this picture, readers? Modern civilian viewers know, so why couldn't the German military anticipate this?

Answer: Conceit. But it was not without reason: The Bismark had the advantage of Krupp steel for its plating and enormous guns.

The movie uses Admiral Günther Lütjens to voice this conceit, when actually he was the one urging caution, recommending that Bismark stay in port until she could be accompanied by three other ships.

In hindsight we can see that even the world's largest battleship needs to be accompanied by an aircraft carrier for defense. So Sink the Bismark! is interesting from a historical perspective as the end of the dominance of battleships.

The story is told largely from the perspective of Capt. Shepard (whom we learn after the credits never existed, and "in no way" depicts Capt. R.A.B. Edwards, the actual director of operations). As such, it follows the model of Command Decision and 12 O'Clock High in showing that caring people had to learn to shut off feelings and thoughts about the men who would inevitably die.

The key here is that it was thought imperative to sink Bismark before she attacked convoys, and that she might be invincible in the open sea (sort of a German Titanic). I'm not sure this point was driven home fully, perhaps because viewers at the time knew this, though Churchill's phone call did underscore the point.

This urgency is what drives the film, but I don't think the movie explains the danger adequately. It assumes the viewers at the time knew the background of the Bismark. I remember the old Johnny Horton 45 rpm single, whose lyrics set up the drama better than the movie. (Why didn't they insert it at the beginning of the movie?)

As a modern viewer, I am annoyed by the cartoonish characterization of Admiral Lütjens. It makes him look conceited, impulsive, heartless. He is a rabid Nazi who addresses the crew as fellow Nazis, when, in fact, the military were forbidden by law from joining political parties, including the Nazi Party. This propagandistic error could be forgiven in movies made during the war, but 15 years after it was a cheap shot.

The real Admiral Lütjens was quite different, according to Wikipedia:

"While in command of personnel department (of the German Navy) he did nothing to enforce the Nuremberg Laws on race in the Kriegsmarine. In November 1938, Lütjens was one of only three flag officers, including Dönitz, who protested in writing to Erich Raeder, Commander-in-Chief of the navy, against the anti- Jewish Kristallnacht pogroms."

Lütjens wasn't a conscientious objector like Captain von Trapp, but he certainly deserves to be treated with more than the usual respect. Protesting Nazi policies from within the navy takes at least as much courage as leaving the country to avoid military service.

The movie has one of the British officers state that their big advantage is the conceit and foolishness of the German military leaders, such as Lütjens. Actually, their big advantage was the conceit and foolishness of Adolf Hitler.

I am not a naval historian, but it seems the invincibility of the Bismark was over-rated. The Bismark's sister ship, the Tirpitz, spent a significant part of the war at anchor under camouflage in Norway before being sunk in 1944. Apparently, the Germans realized that the enemy knew their Achilles had a vulnerability in the heel: the rudder.

And then there's the matter of the "sinking." In the movie, the Brits keep launching torpedoes until she goes down. In the end, the Germans scuttled her, a view backed up by modern underwater examination of the wreck.

The movie portrays the British rescuing survivors. History says the ship left before picking up all survivors, claiming a U boat maybe might have been sighted.

Another nit to pick is that the decision by Lütjens to return to France for repairs was never explained, instead showing him wanting to tough it out with leaking fuel. If the Bismark needed repairs, Brest was the place to go, so the decision by Kenneth More character was not such a gamble. Plus, we know now that he had access to Enigma code messages.

So, combining the facts that the central character, Captain Shepard, was fictional, Admiral Lütjens might as well have been fictional given the inaccuracies, the invincibility and superiority of the Bismark was not fully explained, the invincible Bismark had an Achille's heal at the rudder, and the Brits didn't sink Bismark so much as disable her, that doesn't leave a lot of meat on the bones of this story.

From my perspective, the best part of the story is seeing Edward R. Murrow re-enact his role as CBS war correspondent from London.

It is sad is that this story is hurt largely by British bias. Perhaps it could be improved by a remake. (James "This is Not a Disaster Flick" Cameron, are you listening? "Bismark -- The Hottest Love Story Ever Told!!!")

However, what remains is the Bismark as a monument to Nazi Germany's foolhardy confidence, much as Colonial Britain was convinced of the unsinkability of its Titanic, and its empire.

Peter Pan (1960 TV Movie)

The only critic that counts here is the child

[10/10 · 16 July 2014]

I don't even have to re-watch Peter Pan to rate it; all that counts is experience of a small child sitting in front of a black and white TV more than 50 years ago, and that child rated it as perfect, right up there with Captain Kangaroo, Shari Lewis, and the annual broadcast of The Wizard of Oz.

Peter Pan was written and performed for children, and with the advent of television, it reached into the hearts of virtually all baby-boomers like me. A book could probably be written about what effect it had upon our generation, particularly the hippies of the Sixties.

Now I am old, or at least my body is beginning to show some of its age. I am sometimes a bit more absentminded than before. But in my heart there is still an ageless youth. I, like Peter, vowed not to grow old, and I haven't. What I have learned is that the soul is ageless.

But that is not entirely what Peter was talking about. He wanted to hold onto eternal childhood. That, I have lost; the door closed long ago with adolescence and adulthood. Peter warned us. I think we knew he was right, and as we became teens, we watched helplessly as our childhood faded (perhaps that's why some of us turned to illicit drugs). It is still a surprise how little we can really remember of the experience of childhood, and how lost is that sense of play, fantasy, wonder. How sad and dead is the adult world by comparison.

But when I put on that old 1960 television version of Peter Pan and listened to Mary Martin sing some of those songs, I was transported back to my childhood home, the snug happiness of a good, old-fashioned protected childhood of the 50s and 60s. My heart ached and my eyes teared. How many times I had seen this version of Peter Pan on TV. I had even seen a live performance, complete with actors flying on wires, somewhere off Broadway. To me, THIS is Peter Pan, not the Disney version or any other movie. Watching this as a child, you really believed you could learn to fly.

Now, to an adult's eye, the acting and sets must appear hopelessly inadequate, and crying out of CGI. But children don't need fancy sets when they have fantasy, for they can make forts out of piles of leaves. There is a lot of bad acting in children's movies, but this is an example of how it should be done for small children, at least with a fantasy subject. It is like reading a book to a child.

The music is perfect, creating just the right emotional response. I see Leodard Bernstein gets some of the credit, though I am not clear how much. If you look at the Wikipedia entry for Hershy Kay you will see that he was the collaborator and orchestrator for Bernstein on several projects, including this.

During Bernstein's lifetime, Kay didn't get much credit. I was told by someone who knew both of them well (the chairman of the music department of Columbia Univeristy), that Kay did most of the work, while Bernstein just sketched out some tunes, and this includes Westside Story. In other words, Bernstein paid Kay to do the orchestration and keep quiet, while he took all the credit. But the Broadway pros knew the real story. I mention this because I am not sure how much of the record has been corrected.

This, of course, is the sort of thing we adults worry about. It's amazing how much adults can find to argue about in America these day. And look at all the crazy wars and conflicts going on around the world. Sometimes adults can sure act like little children, and not in a good way.

As to the video quality, I can't complain because I, like 99 percent of America, watched this originally on a B&W set, with far less detail than today's digital video. And children are pretty easy critics to please, or at least they were way back then.

I could see taking this material and music and remaking it so it would be more effective for older kids and adults, if only they would stick relatively close to the original -- something most remakes don't do. The Disney animated version just leaves me cold, and the various movie versions I've seen over the years were at best OK. The key is retaining the focus on childhood fantasy, something most adults simply can't do. And that is the the strength of this version.

There is a reason for adults to watch this: Mary Martin. She created so many roles on Broadway that were later made into movies, but rarely appeared in movies, herself. I suspect her style worked better on the stage, but here, on this television recreation of the Broadway who, it is perfect.

The Rawhide Years (1956)

An unpretentious Western that delivers

[7/10 · 14 July 2014]

To call this a "B Western" is to do it an injustice. B Westerns were long on action, shooting, horse chases and short on acting, and, most of all, character development. And they were intended as second billing to an A feature.

Rawhide Years has solid acting all around, and some truly enjoyable singing (and fine acting) from Colleen Miller. Tony Curtis delivers a relaxed, low-keyed performance in the manner of Hitchcock's dictum: Don't act! The result is some remarkably good acting for the Fifties.

The movie is similarly low-keyed, and delivers a pleasant, interesting tale. There is a bit of a who-dunit in the river pirates that puts some meat on the plot, and there is character development to the Curtis role that shows a con man with a conscience who becomes a cowpoke and, ultimately, a man.

The Arthur Kennedy character has an even stronger element of character development, and the twists add greatly to the story's interest. Kennedy's is, indeed, the most interesting acting.

And then there is Peter van Eyck, the bad guy almost to the point of caricature -- Boo! Hiss! -- at least by the end of the movie. He all but ties Zoe to the railroad tracks. I kept having to double check that I wasn't seeing Harvey Korman in Blazing Saddles. I suspect Korman was parodying van Eyck -- and there is some resemblance.

There is no strong moralizing here, just an entertaining story. If there is any lesson, it is that appearances can be deceiving, and it can be hard to know who your friends are. The opening, where the crew of the riverboat mistakes some logs for pirates hints at this, as does the Kennedy character.

Rawhide Years has a good storyline that keeps moving and keeps your attention. In the end, the story ties the threads together nicely. It is not a great movie, just a good, solid, entertaining one, and that's all it sets out to be.

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (1957)

Does not stand the test of time

[5/10 · 6 July 2014]

Save yourself the trouble. There is nothing to see here you probably haven't before, and better, especially if you have seen High Noon.

With the corny opening theme song by Dimitri Tiomkin, it is painfully obvious that this is going to be a second rate attempted sequel to High Noon. The scenes of trees amid the hilly desert brush are virtually identical, except this version is in wide screen color -- and minus the political moralizing that torqued off the conservatives.

It worked at the time, judging from the box office. And why not? Wide screen color spectacles were still new in the Fifties, and it wasn't bad enough to leave the theater. But today we have the pause and eject buttons. I made it through to the end, but only with great difficulty and frequent use of the pause button.

Unlilke High Noon, I just didn't care about the characters. There was no coherent thread to the story, just a series of events, until about an hour in we finally shift to Tombstone. Then the dialog perks up, and the score starts to imitate a Rachmaninoff symphony.

Spoiler alert:

And then there is a gunfight. At the O.K. Corral.

If there is any reason to watch this movie it is to see some of the secondary players in off-character roles: namely Frank Faylen, the father of Dobie Gillis and taxi driver in It's a Wonderful LIfe; and Dennis Hopper as the baby faced Billy Clanton.

Look, any movie with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas can't be all bad, but this one comes close because their hearts don't really seem to be in their roles.

The most interesting scene is watching Kirk Douglas shave. I mean, just how does he shave that cavernous dimple? We see him whisk a straight razor across his face and, presto, no stubble -- and no bloody nicks. He tells Earp: "I like a sharp razor." Right. Call me a cynic, but that was no more a real razor than they were using real bullets.

Still, it is of some cinematic historical interest, mainly for its influence on the spoof "Support Your Local Sheriff." And the bit where the bad guy is swinging from a chandelier seems to have been the inspiration for a similar scene in Gremlins.

I'm giving this a 5, but if you try to imagine it without Burt and Kirk, and only have the anemic plot and script, it is down to a 4 or 3. Heck, I only finished watching it an hour ago, and I can barely remember the first half.

Trading Places (1983)

Stands the test of time

[7/10 · 29 June 2014]

I didn't watch this when it came out, thinking it sounded lightweight, with a totally improbable plot. I finally gave it a spin after hearing it quoted on NPR, the part where the Dukes teach Commodities for Kiddies to Eddie Murphy.

Look, this is a pretty dumb movie that splices together ideas from many different sources. The characters are cartoonish and the plot leaks like a sieve. Yet, out of it all comes something reasonably creative and entertaining.

In short, I enjoyed it. And I do not suffer foolish movies gladly.

Why did it work?

• Skilled comedic acting all around. We've got some early Saturday Night Live alumni, including a current U.S. Senator who actually did graduate from Harvard (who plays a really dumb baggage handler), and some genuine, seasoned actors in Don Ameche (who's previous film was with Jamie Lee's father), Ralph Bellamy and Denholm Elliott. I think the actors were having fun, and it rubs off on the audience.

• I actually cared about and liked the main characters: Akroyd, Murphy, Curtis, et al. - - this despite being highly unrealistic.

• Good pacing. The plot pulls you along fast enough that you never have time to think about how stupid it is (well, not too much).

More important, the film gets you to suspend disbelief early on. The opening scenes of Philadelphia are the most realistic part of the movie, and helped along with a loud dose of Mozart -- highly reminiscent of "Hopscotch."

At about 4 minutes in we meet Winthorpe and see him go to work. He is obnoxious, and Akroyd's acting is not realistic, but the movie isn't either, so he is setting the tone. In essence, Landis is telling the audience: This ain't Shakespeare, despite the Mozart. Take it or leave it. He is also setting the quality bar low, so it can only get better, and it does. Smart. (Akroyd's acting becomes more genuine later in the movie, and he did a fine job in Driving Miss Daisy).

Then at 6 minutes we meet the Duke brothers in their sprawling estate (filmed on Long Island) and the tone becomes that of a fable, a la Prince and the Pauper. At 9 minutes, Eddie Murphy does his Porgy thing pretending to be a lame beggar. The Dukes beat him with a briefcase, yet the absurdity of the acting brings a smile to your face. At 10 minutes, the Dukes enter their private club, and I'm hooked.

About 50 minutes in we feel like we're in a 1980s version of It's a Wonderful Life, as Winthorpe tries to go home and his butler pretends not to know him. There's something eternal in that theme.

We're dealing here with a particular genre that may be foreign to 21st century viewers: 1970s Saturday Night Live alumni, Animal House, Blues Brothers, etc. Blues Brothers is by far the strongest - a classic! So contemporary viewers had a sense of what to expect.

Yet Trading Places stands the test of time because we all (or most of us) like a nice story of revenge on mean, old rich people. Events in the news have only strengthened this theme. The ending is sweet.

The People's Choice (1955–1958)

Patricia Breslin

[9/10 · 7 June 2014]

Patricia Breslin, I loved you. Sure, it was puppy love, but what do you expect? I was only 2 to 5 years old during the original broadcast of "People's Choice," but I was precocious. And besides, I mainly watched you in re-runs from the NYC television stations in the early 1950s, so I was probably at least 6.

And then there was your co-staring role in "Crooked Road," on Alfred Hitchcock Presents, a show I will never forget, along with Walther Mathau as the crooked deputy. By the time you appeared on The Twilight Zone, season 4, "No Time Like the Past," I was truly ready to appreciate your maternal charms. You were the mother I always wished I had had.

Now, when I happen upon a vision of you on a wonderful old television time capsule, it as though I were in love with you all over for the first time. I wonder how many thousands, nay millions, of once young American males feel the same way about you?

You, Patricia Breslin, are my ideal, the virginal girl of my pre- pubescent fantasies, a woman I shall always seek, and never find, except in my dreams.

Unless, of course, I find a way to travel back in time. Somewhere. In time. Must go back. Focus! Concentrate! Ohio. Or is it Willoughby? Whatever.

Perry Mason: The Case of the Lucky Loser (1958) Season 2, Episode 2

Perry Mason meets his evil twin

[9/10 · 24 May 2014]

The reason this is one of the best Perry Mason episodes is perhaps because the story was written by Erle Stanley Gardner, himself, as a book that was first serialized in The Saturday Evening Post in 1956. (The teleplay is written by Seelig Lester.) I see that some of the Perry Mason episodes are based on Gardner's books going back to the 30s. I wonder if they are better than the average episode written by other writers?

I also wonder if the original print version of this story had clues tucked away in the more voluminous text that were missing from the one-hour TV version? I suspect it is harder to camouflage clues on TV than in a book.

Like any good mystery, the first and most obvious suspect probably didn't do it, and this is especially true with the Mason episodes. Usually who we might think is the most likely suspect shifts as the show progresses and the background details become clearer.

The moral of the show could, perhaps, be: Appearances can be deceiving. Mason knows this, better than the police, who are all to quick to accept facts that are amenable to their case. This is key here, as Mason is more careful about checking the veracity of the facts the police seem to have established.

-- Spoiler alert --

What we have is layer upon layer of appearances and illusions, largely created by the unapologetic fixer for the oligarchical California Balfour family, a sort of evil genius alter-ego of Perry Mason. It is not every day Mason encounters someone so intelligent, and he respects him as a worthy adversary, and because he is doing his job to protect the Balfour interests.

The most interesting scene is where he tries to intimidate Mason, even while admitting some criminal responsibility. We wonder what is going through Mason's mind, and whether it is having any effect. We see later that Mason's probable reaction was to wonder what his real motive was. It is like a match between two chess masters.

The best way to watch Perry Mason is with a group of friends, and to try to analyze who did it, and why, as the show progresses. I wonder how many would guess the real culprit in this show? It certainly came as a surprise to me. The only person you could be sure was innocent was the rich guy's grandson, of course, because he was Mason's client.

With many of the Mason episodes, there seem to be too many gaps in the trail for the viewer to be able to pin the culprit ahead of time, and for the viewer to feel entirely satisfied when the guilty party is revealed. To me, the ending here was very satisfying, and that's all I will say about it.

-- End spoiler alert --

Raymond Burr IS Perry Mason. How could anyone else play the role as well? If you don't believe me, listen to Gardner:

"At the auditions to cast the parts, as Burr entered the room, Gardner shouted, "That's him! That's Mason!", changing the course of Burr's career forever." -- Wikipedia

Oddly, I think Burr more closely matches the original book description of Hamilton Burger than William Talman: "a broad-shouldered, thick-necked individual with a close-cropped moustache."

Burr fans should watch the episode of the Jack Benny Show where Perry Mason appears in Benny's dream to defend him against the charge of murder of a rooster.

-- Spoiler alert --

Benny was innocent, which is more than could be said of Mason.

.

Babes on Broadway (1941)

Treacle by the gallon

[3/10 · 23 April 2014]

The best part of this movie is the debut of Margaret O'Brien at age 4, standing on a table:

"Please, wait, don't send my brother to the chair! Don't let him burn! Please. Please, warden, please!"

That was probably the only moment in this film with anything close to real emotion. (She is so full of life, she puts other actors in the shade.) It was also the only moment of real humor.

I say "probably" because I quit at about 50 minutes. Normally, if a movie doesn't grab me by 10 minutes, I'm out. But this is Judy Garland and and Mickey Rooney, RIP. How bad can it be?

Well, if I were locked in a movie theater in 1942 with a bucket of popcorn, I guess I would have seen it through to the end -- if I were a teenager. If I weren't, I doubt I would have bought a ticket. But today, when we watch a movie, we have the pause and eject buttons.

It's funny, but as you get older, time seems to move faster, generally. But the first 20 minutes of Babes on Broadway seemed to last two hours; 50 minutes seemed like two years. At this rate, I'm not sure I will live long enough to finish it.

The movie seems so lifeless, so devoid of emotion, so flat. I really don't care about the characters or the story. If I were a teenager back then ... or even a teenager watching this on an old black and white TV set. Except I don't even recall doing that, and I would watch just about any old movie back in the Sixties with many NYC stations to choose from. If I did see it, it left ZERO impression.

The premise of the movie is contrived, and despite the time taken to set it up, not very interesting. Then we switch gears about 50 minutes into a string of song and dance numbers. The music is not very good, and bears no relation to the storyline, aside from the story being they are putting on a musical revue block party.

If there's one thing that turns me off, it is a musical with music that is not integrated to the story. Who cares? Well, I guess some people like musicals with dancing and big production numbers, regardless.

The music, right from the beginning, is cloying, mechanical tunes turned out by the MGM production team, dressed up with fancy orchestration. The exception is "How About You?"

Busby Berkeley knew how to put on big dance numbers, and he should have stuck to that. He seems to lack feeling, heart, soul. Here, it is all glitter and hyperactivity. I like Fred Astaire tap dancing, but I'm not going to sit through a sort of talent show amateur hour, no matter how skillful. I think the studio gave Berkeley the second rate stuff to direct, figuring he could keep them afloat with the dance numbers.

Maybe I am being unfair -- without sitting through the last hour, I will never know. But the problem with these reviews is that too often we only hear from the ones who liked it enough to sit through it. Babes on Broadway is treacle by the gallon. So, if you like treacle, you'll love it. As for me, Babes on Broadway makes me nauseous.

It also makes me sad. As I looked at all the young men in the movie, I couldn't help wondering how soon they would be drafted, how many would be killed or maimed in battle over the next four years. It was odd timing for such a story about young people wanting to make it on Broadway. I wonder how this went over with audiences at the time. Unless they were under 14, it was just a matter of time before they would be in uniform, as the war progressed. Was this on their minds?

Hollywood is about escape, so perhaps Babes provided some relief from the impending doom of WWII. But, unlike so many wonderful old Hollywood movies, it doesn't work as escape now. One reason, perhaps, is that Babes on Broadway violates the basic principle of musicals: it tries to be realistic. Musicals need an element of fantasy and unreality: it makes you suspend the disbelief that people can break into song and dance in their daily lives.

But Babes is stuck in the old formula, of having actors play actors and perform musical numbers as part of the story. The Wizard of Oz and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs had demonstrated an alternative mode for musicals. This is the route of enduring escapist fantasy. But in Babes, the plot exists only as a pretext for performing song and dance numbers.

This is not for me. I'm outta here.

Swing Vote (2008)

The ultimate absurdity

[9/10 · 15 April 2014]

This is a little gem that absorbs so much of our zeitgeist and angst, and turns it into a surprisingly entertaining picture. On the surface, it sounds like it should be a stinker, yet there are some interesting and touching twists to the plot, especially toward the end.

Costner plays a Homer Simpson dumb-ass, yet Swing Vote avoids falling into the Dumb and Dumber genre, thanks in part to his "Lisa Simpson" daughter, played to perfection by Madeline Carroll, and to the genuineness of Costner's performance. It also avoids falling into stereotypes of politicians and their operatives, though it sometimes comes close. The candidates, at least, do have second thoughts and feelings.

The screenplay builds characters deftly. The movie is a bit long and slow, but to good effect. I am tired of hyper, zipping movies. The scenes with Bud and Molly fishing, with the President and Bud just sitting outside on chaises, need the slow pace to convey atmosphere. And it says that Bud is the sort of guy who just likes to enjoy a quiet life. He isn't a bad guy, and in an earlier decade with a better economy, might have done just fine; as such he represents millions of Americans.

The basic premise is more that a little improbable, of course, of an election decided by one vote. And yet we see stories about this on the local level often enough. It is movie as fable, much like the classic "Dave," a point alluded to by John Debney's score when it echoes the fairytale effects of James Newton Howard's score from "Dave." Both are about an everyman who gets to call the shots when he becomes king for a day. We get to imagine ourselves in their shoes.

Spoiler alert:

Swing Vote has a fantastic premise, and as such, we viewers are treated to the spectacle of seeing how far the writers and director can go out on a limb before it collapses. It never does. We wonder how it will end, who Bud will vote for, will he get a job, will he get the girl? Wisely, but sadly, they don't take us that far, leaving it to the viewer's imagination. It is nice to have an ending that leaves things to think about.

There are so many echoes in this movie of life and art, particularly the bizarre Dade County endless recounts of the 2000 Bush-Gore election. That was a case of truth being stranger than fiction; I still have trouble believing that a U.S. Presidential election was virtually stolen by someone who lost by more than a half-million votes.

Swing Vote is sort of the Wag the Dog of electoral politics, with the transmogrification of reality into PR media reality, as every word Bud utters leads to a near instantaneous rewriting of the candidates' positions through television ads addressed to Dear Bud. It also brings to mind The Lathe of Heaven, where the character's dreams and wishes instantaneously transform the world. Both Dave and Swing Vote are heirs to the Capra tradition of film populism -- and both have a hefty list of real-life cameos.

Swing Vote is a reductio ad absurdum of everyday poll-driven swing-voter politics to their ultimate absurdity: a single voter. It is amusing and frightening. But Molly and reporter Kate Madison save the day by rubbing Bud's nose in the reality of some of the thousands of letters he has received from people who are hurting, who care passionately about the issues.

Finally, Bud takes his responsibility seriously, ending the movie on a note of hope. If Bud is the Everyman, then what it is saying is that if every voter were to take his responsibility to weigh the issues as seriously, perhaps the candidates, too, would respond with substance. For they and their handlers care, but under the imperative to win must cater to an electorate that does not think deeply, who, like Bud, are probably in a beer haze while voting -- if they do.

Six years on, Swing Vote has become a sleeper, a potential classic that most viewers have overlooked. I highly recommend it. It's message is as timely as ever. Most of all, it is a fun, entertaining movie.

Private School (1983)

Shameless

[2/10 · 14 April 2014]

Once upon a time, long, long ago, there was no Internet. The world was a dark and dreary place. There were no cellphones, no selfies, no sexting. There were no porn sites filled with naked girls by the thousands, open to teens with just a click of the "Yes, I'm an adult" box. If you were a teen and your parents had a VCR (which cost about $1,000 back then), you still couldn't go into the XXX section of your local video rental store, if there was one. Heck, you couldn't even buy -- or browse -- a Playboy magazine, legally.

So what was left? Weeellllll, you could actually do it in person, but that would require actually meeting a girl. It was all quite mysterious, back in the days before porn. So, for the sex-starved American male, there was the local movie theater, or, better yet, drive-in. Way back then, a little nudity went a long way to attracting audiences, at least males. And that's about all you get with "Private School."

Originality, you do not get. We get clumsily remade scenes from the great classics of teen porn, such as Animal House - 1978, specifically, the second story peeping Toms. We get the shower scenes in homage to Porky's - 1982. And we get a sex ed class, a la The Meaning of Life - March 1983. And then there were the cross-dressing scenes, which were original in Some Like it Hot, way back in 1959. Yawwwwn.

What's the difference between Private School and porn? Porn is more educational. We don't actually learn anything in the sex ed class scene, unlike The Meaning of Life and any self-respecting porno. What we do learn is that Sylvia Kristel, who is a surprisingly good actress, gives an incredibly bad performance, presumably on the demand of director Noel Black. Was this some sort of retribution for a lack of "cooperation"? (No, Kristel does not provide a "demonstration" in the movie.)

We should not forget Dan Greenburg and Suzanne O'Malley, credited with "writing" this movie (I wonder if they list it on their resume?). And who came up with the imaginative title: "Private School"?

Fortunately, Phoebe Cates is treated with more respect. I'm glad her career survived this flaming turkey. She was excellent in Gremlins. Where have you gone, Phoebe? You can come out of hiding now. All is forgiven!

If Private School were released today in a movie theater, would anyone show up? Would anyone stay to the end? Maybe. There are some people who actually enjoy stupid, bad movies. (Which raises the question of why I watched it. Answer: I stumbled on it in Leonard Maltin's book, and found the cast (Phoebe Gates AND Sylvia Kristel!!!??? (Don't be fooled: There is NO Phoebe and Sylvia scene) ) and rating of "BOMB" intriguing.) But the sex scenes wouldn't cut it, these days. Now, sex has to be graphic and dished out in heaping helpings, like Nymphomaniac, etc. Some mainstream movies are now nothing more than porn with better production values, like Titanic -- and unlike Private School, which had neither high production values, nor graphic sex.

Stay to the end? I dare you to make it past the credits! The title song is atrocious, repulsive and repeats a certain four-letter word, perhaps to help spice up the R rating. This movie is pure, shameless teensploitation. Perhaps it should be titled "Shameless."

Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against nudity, porn, or sex in movies, just snickering, un-erotic, sagging nudity. But, hey, if this movie turns you on, enjoy those hyper-hormones while you can. Youth is wasted on the young. Go out and meet a real girl. If you don't know what to do with her, watch some real porn. You won't learn anything at this "Private School."

Fire in the Sky (1993)

Anachronistic portrayal of the main characters

[5/10 · 4 April 2014]

My main gripe is that the logging crew are portrayed as 1990s types, rather than rural 1970s people. If you look at the photos of the actual people from Travis Walton's website, they don't look at all like their portrayals in the movie.

The acting was good, with strong emotional demonstrations by the logging crew; without that, this movie would have been really weak. The only star I recognized was James Garner, whose presence added greatly to the movie's credibility (ironically, his character was the main skeptic).

The Walton encounter occurred before the wave of interest in UFOs that arose in the 1980s, following the publication of Shirley MacLaine's "Out on a Limb" in 1983, and especially the broadcast of the TV movie in 1987. It also preceded "Close Encounters" by two years; perhaps it inspired some elements of the movie?

While there was considerable interest in the press about UFOs in the 1950s, plus some movies, etc., there was little non-fiction about abductions until decades later. So Walton's account would not have been "inspired" by other descriptions. However, it also seems to vary from the more common accounts of abductions. If people independently describe similar details, this strengthens their credibility.

Without reading the book, there is not enough detail in this movie to make any judgment about the credibility of Walton's account. Aside from the movie special effects re-enactment, there is no actual talk from Walton describing in his own words what happened. There is a whole lot missing, like how he got out of the UFO and wound up naked at a cross- roads in the rain.

It is interesting to see how the townsfolk reacted. Perhaps the strongest scene in the movie was when Mike Rogers confronted the townsfolk in the church. I'm not sure how accurate that all was, this being a Hollywood movie.

As to motive, so-called skeptics are too quick to accuse people like Walton of seeking publicity with made up stories. I can't believe Walton would make up a story like this back in the 1970s, especially in a small town, etc. Most abductees don't want to talk about these things publicly. But Walton's five-day disappearance begged that question.

However, the folks making the movie apparently wanted to cash in on the wave of interest in UFOs, post-MacLaine. I think the movie presents the events in a fairly reasonable fashion, though, again, I'm not sure how accurate it is. But I would not say it is a particularly realistic presentation of the abduction experience compared to the more common, mainstream accounts.

I see from the discussion on IMDb that Walton now believes the aliens were not as malevolent as he thought, initially, and perhaps were trying to help him. This makes sense.

As to the so-called theory that UFO sightings are more common in rural areas, nonsense. UFOs have been seen in and around New York City, including along the Grand Central Parkway and hovering over the New Jersey Palisades, directly across the Hudson River from Manhattan. And then there was the sighting from the Brooklyn Bridge of a woman being abducted from her apartment. Perhaps New Yorkers are just a bit more blasé about oddities.

While rummaging through my brain for other similar accounts, I started to remember old images and descriptions like those in the film of the cavernous area. The trouble is, I don't remember the specifics. It is possible I am just remembering having seen the movie years ago on VHS, or having read the book.

The irony is there is so much stuff out about UFOs now, that anyone now would have difficulty telling whether it was a bad dream inspired by some movie or book or TV show, and anyone claiming to have had an encounter might face similar questions.

On the other hand, there are now thousands of people describing UFO encounters, often with common threads, all over the world, including Presidents, governors, high ranking military brass, and scientists. This, in retrospect, probably vindicates Walton's account.

But while missing time is common, it is very rare to show up days later, naked. And most people simply don't remember their abduction. How Walton recalled it is not made clear in the movie -- did the doctor put him into hypnosis?

There would probably be many more descriptions of UFO encounters, but most people who know keep their mouths shut. Why? Just look at this film, and you will see why.

The bottom line: While this movie is reasonably interesting, compared to other fiction and non-fiction movies about UFOs, it comes across as a bit weak and not terribly enlightening.

The Bargee (1964)

Tedious and disappointing

[9/10 · 7 February 2014]

What were they thinking? Acting of a level found in children's movies, yet a story about philandering? Some of the acting is jaw-droppingly bad, with the most bizarre from the fellow playing the doctor, followed by the mariner-twit. Julia Foster and Hugh Griffith deliver the only satisfactory performances.

The concept of the movie is commendable: documenting the fast-fading life along the canals. The widescreen Technicolor does the subject justice. But it should have been more of a slice-of-life approach, with more natural acting and writing. Instead, it is painfully corny.

British viewers seem to like it. Perhaps they are more used to this sort of highly artificial acting, from their movies and television programs? American TV is not without its share of corn, such as Gilligan's Island and The Beverly Hillbillies, also from the Sixties. So there must be people who like this sort of thing.

My guess is The Bargee has more appeal to British viewers, the subject being part of their cultural heritage. However, although I love historical period movies, this lacks the vérité and detail to really give me a feeling of the time. The music also often seems out of joint with the action on the screen. The end result is tedious and disappointing.

American Experience: America and the Holocaust: Deceit and Indifference (1994) Season 6, Episode 8

Plenty of shame to go around

[10/10 · 1 February 2014]

Words cannot begin to express how sad and depressed I am after watching this documentary. But, then, I am Jewish. I could not help but feel that most Gentiles even today might feel the actions by the State Department and many America first organizations in opposing the admission of Jewish refugees from the Nazi Holocaust were reasonable -- that is, if they could be bothered to watch this.

Several important facts should be noted: American Jews and Jews around the world were virtually powerless in pressuring governments to support the admission of Jewish refugees; America did little and Canada did next to nothing. This puts the lie to that fiction, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (which was disseminated in America by Henry Ford).

Yet in my travels I have found educated, middle class people in Asia who believe the Protocols are an absolutely true description of how Jews secretly control the world. This is not just Muslims, but Hindus in India, as well as teachers in Korea, and elsewhere. Hitler is, I am told, presented as a role model of a great world leader in schools in China today.

Although Jewish refugees were turned away during WWII, in the decades after, America established a generous policy of admitting refugees from around the world. This provides real solace that those millions of deaths were not entirely in vane.

There is a great deal of information in this documentary, backed up by powerful imagery, such as the footage of American Nazi rallies. Eric Sevareid talked about seeing this, and visiting the living rooms of home- grown Nazis in the Midwest before Pearl Harbor. We see footage of Kristallnacht, and descriptions by Kurt Klein of his parents' home being destroyed by his classmates and neighbors.

Without the complicity of the German people, the Nazi Holocaust could not have taken place. Yet I cannot hate the Nazis nor the Germans for this because I know that the same seeds of hate existed in America, in the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazis, the anti-semites, the racists, and this hate continues on in the contemporary American political scene.

It is probable that this, and this documentary, are reasons that Republicans try repeatedly to eliminate all government support for public broadcasting in America. However, most Americans are decent people, and most would have supported the admission of Jewish refugees had it not been for pressure groups, politics, and WASP domination of the State Department.

The America first attitude stated by a member of the Patriotic Order Son's of America sounds reasonable, except when you consider that America was settled and built by immigrants (who largely stole land from the Indians) and refugees, and that by refusing admission of Jewish refugees, they were complicit in their extermination.

I recently watched and reviewed Hitler's Children - 2011. That was difficult to watch, but this was far, far more painful; I had difficulty finishing it. I doubt many Americans will watch it. America has done much in its history we can be proud of. But it is also important that we face our collective guilt and shame honestly.

Hitler's Children (2011)

Unvarnished truth and emotions

[10/10 · 26 January 2014]

Thank you for a documentary without the special effects and booming music that are so prevalent these days! The silence allows the truth and emotions to penetrate to the viewer. "Hitler's Children" is not unduly mawkish, avoids any exploitative tone, and ends on an uplifting note.

Don't be afraid to watch it, whoever you are; you will learn something. This is not just about Germany, the Nazis, the Jews. Germany has been inoculated; young Germans I have met in my travels born well after the war still show shame when the subject comes up. We can find hate, intolerance, scapegoating, in many countries, including the United States. And to label these Nazis, monsters that they were, evil is to miss the danger that you or your neighbors might be capable of this, too, in similar circumstances. It is called "conformity."

It takes courage to resist these forces. And it takes courage to confront your family's past. How many of us are descended from parents or grandparents who committed some heinous wrong? How many turn away from the truth? That's also who this documentary is for. If you had a parent who was a bad person, consider this.

It is a bit glib to talk about "evil" and that these were evil people. Part of what this documentary shows us is that they had families, wives and children whom they loved. Is this the face of evil? No, this is the face of real people who committed horrible acts.

In the immortal words of Gilbert & Sullivan:

"When a felon's not engaged in his employment or maturing his felonious little plans, his capacity for innocent enjoyment is just as great as any honest man's."

This documentary shows how people with feelings can dissociate those emotions from evil acts that boggle the imagination, somehow becoming routine and "normal." Raising a family in a home separated by only a wall and gate from an extermination camp, the ashes from the bodies landing on the strawberries they ate epitomizes this dissociation.

For me, it was another leaf in trying to understand my unmet family's past. For my father's family died in the Holocaust, my grandfather, after whom I was named, in Auschwitz; his name and date of death is recorded online. I sometimes try to imagine what he saw on those last days, hours, moments. I don't think he would want to be mourned so much as remembered. These children's accounts help to keep that memory alive.

My parents never taught me to hate the Germans. The worst outcome of the Holocaust would be to perpetuate hate. I have known Holocaust survivors. They loved life. They, more than most, were glad to be alive. Happiness is the best revenge, they sometimes say. This is good advice for Bettina Goering, Katrin Himmler, Monika Goeth, Rainer Hoess and Niklas Frank. I can't really forgive them because I have never blamed them. But I forgive you, anyway.

Note that January 27 is Holocaust Remembrance Day; Auschwitz was liberated on this day 69 years ago. Please take a moment to remember the victims, Jews and non-Jews, those who died and those who survived; and to think about all the secondary victims, the relatives and even the families of the perpetrators.

I wonder, which is worse: to die or to survive with the memory, with your family, your loved ones gone? What was it like to experience being torn from the arms or your loved ones by armed guards, desperately reaching out, looking into each others' eyes for the last time, knowing each of you will be taken to death camps, to die apart?

The Holocaust was an attempt at genocide, of Jews and other groups. Please remember that genocide continues today, at this moment, somewhere in the world.

The Nazi crimes against humanity extend far beyond the 6 million Jews who died; historians estimate 20,946,000 people died outside of battle:

"The Nazi Body Count represents non-battle deaths caused by Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945. This includes genocide, execution of civilians and POWs, forced labor that resulted in deaths, bombing of civilian populations, imposed famine and resulting diseases, and 'euthanasia.' These numbers do not include civilians who got caught in the cross-fire of battle." - R. J. Rummel

It is not ancient history, not yet. Consider that someone who was 16 when Auschwitz was liberated is 85 today, with loved children and grandchildren. Those events had an impact upon my life, even to today, and so they also have had upon countless millions of relatives and descendants, still alive. It will takes decades until we all pass away, and it truly becomes ancient history. But even then it will touch countless lives of those yet unborn.

Holiday Affair (1949)

A fine movie, in spite of the dull acting and directing

[8/10 · 14 December 2013]

If you were flipping channels, you would never know these were great actors from glancing at this movie, but don't let that fool you. It's got a fine script: a plot with plenty of O. Henry curve balls and mature, romantic dialogue.

The situations are realistic. Guys, if you are with your girlfriend, don't yell at her kids - discipline is the mother's job. The Mitchum character got it right: you need to be able to speak to kid man to man/boy to boy. Right there, Steve won her heart, and Carl nearly lost her.

Speaking of Carl, Wendell Corey's little Dear Jane speech was very wisely written and delivered. Corey had the hardest job in the movie, and he delivered the nuances just right. The Steve and Connie roles almost seem like generic acting. It was Harry Morgan who stole the show in the police station.

That said, any movie with Robert Mitchum in it is worth watching. He has 1,000 watt charisma, even if it is turned down here. I suppose if he were overly radiant, it wouldn't seem plausible for Connie to keep turning him down. This role is Mitchum the humble.

The directing is surprisingly good, in light of the nondescript credits of Don Hartman. The movie could have been brightened up with someone with more of a Capra touch - or George Seaton, the director of Miracle on 34th Street, which came out two years earlier. I think this movie holds up remarkable well over time because of the mature, realistic writing. It would work well as a chick flick, a couples flick, or a family flick. There are life lessons for guys, gals and children.

It's interesting to see that it wasn't a success at the time, though. Perhaps it was a bit too mature -- I was a surprised by the graphic smooching for the time. And perhaps it didn't work too well shown at Christmas, when a more fun, upbeat movie was called for. But now it would work any time of year, and is better appreciated as a dryer alternative to the overly saccharine fare sometimes shown around this time.

Spoiler alert:

I suspect people were hoping for something more like Miracle on 34th Street. There are echoes of of the earlier story here, including a child wishing for something impossible, a woman getting remarried, a lawyer courting her. And the child, Timmy, really wants his mother to marry Steve, so he gets his real wish - but the movie doesn't hit that note clearly at the end. We do, however, see a reversion to the toy train, which was clever. But the movie almost might have been better if Timmy had hugged Steve aboard the train, instead of the drunk. Or was that Timmy?

I Love You Again (1940)

A fine film that adds up to more than the sum of its parts

[8/10 · 29 November 2013]

I promptly gave this film 8 stars after watching it, but then when I went to bed, I began to wonder if I was crazy. If you start to dissect it, the parts - plot, secondary acting - are weak. Yet it is still worth the 8 because it is a thoroughly enjoyable movie from start to finish. (I see other IMDb posters also noticed this contradiction.)

Has there ever been a William Powell movie that wasn't enjoyable? I don't think so. Look at his IMDb quotes, and you will see why. In another actor's hands, this would have been a 5 or 6 star movie. Even Myrna Loy would not have been enough to lift the movie, alone.

Powell had just the right touch, which conveyed from the opening scene that this would be a fun movie, as long as you don't take it too seriously. And that's why it works. Any modern viewer knows that amnesia doesn't work this way, but this is the premise of the movie, so you go along, for Powell.

From the modern perspective, the secondary acting is good, but a bit cornball - simple, stereotyped roles. But that was the acting style of the period. Lovers of old films can accept this, but younger viewers might be turned off. Speaking of old, Edmund Lowe was one of the original talkie lead actors, going back to 1928's In Old Arizona. I should note that both Frank McHugh and Myrna Loy avoid over-acting, and were quite sincere in their roles, which avoided making the film cloying.

For the uninitiated, watch William Powell and Myrna Loy in the Thin Man series - a caviar and champagne detective series. And watch Powell in his final role as Doc in Mr. Roberts to see just how great he was.

I get annoyed with the over-use of the label "screwball comedy"; too many so-called screwball comedies are painful, noisy messes of exaggerated acting. To me, this is just a good laugh out loud comedy. But after looking up the definition, I have to concede that technically the label is correct. Actually, Powell set the standard, starring in perhaps the greatest screwball comedy of the 30s and 40s: My Man Godfrey.

It doesn't take long to figure out where the plot is going, or the ending. It is the style, class and little twists along the way that make I Love You Again fun. And it is topped off with a couple of sweet little twists right at the end. So enjoy.

36 Hours (1964)

Don't let the pretty faces fool you

[9/10 · 19 November 2013]

What is most remarkable about "36 Hours" is the year it was made: 1965. With the third and best Bond movie having been released in 1964, Hollywood and England were in the midst of 1,001 iterations of the secret agent theme.

To the modern viewer, this appears a knock off of "The Prisoner," but actually that was first broadcast in 1967. One poster says McGoohan outlined the concept in 1965, which still raises the possibility that "36 Hours" was a direct inspiration. However, there were hints of what was to come in his Danger Man/Secret Agent series. And some say "The Prisoner" was based on a real spy village.

Some might say "36 Hours" is an homage to Hitchcock. The concept certainly is, and there is a reason: Roadl Dahl also wrote several of the best "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" television episodes. The early scenes, where there a so many gray, little people who are actually spies is true to the Hitchcock paranoia, as is the sense of atmosphere.

However, the directorial style is not Hitchcock, and one must wonder what the movie would have looked like in his hands. I think the pace would have felt more taut, with more buildup of suspense. Another factor is the music. Look at the Portugal scenes - they look like Hitch, but the music by Dimitri Tiomkin is far too light for suspense. There was very little music later in the movie to set the mood. Bernard Herrmann would have given it more of a Hitch feel. So, I think they were trying not to imitate Hitch -- perhaps too hard.

Some complain that it is too slow, and, indeed, at points the movie does feel like it is 36 hours. But I strongly feel we have become an ADHD nation of short attention span due to modern editing. The slower pace gives you time to absorb the details and atmosphere, which is as much of the story as the explanatory dialogue. And you don't feel like a limp rag when it is over.

There are elements that echo Hitch's "North By Northwest," which co- starred Eva Marie Saint, a very pretty face with nothing to prove. Here, she gets to act a very different persona, and she creates a convincing younger version of Marlene Dietrich, with just a touch of German accent. They don't come more handsome than James Garner, but he, too, gets a chance to prove his acting chops. Rod Taylor also was in a Hitch classic: "The Birds," and gives a convincing performance here, one of his best. So there is some great acting to be seen.

"36 Hours" is about a Great Con, much like "The Sting" 1973, and the earlier "Went the Day Well?" 1942, which also entailed Germans speaking perfect English. Actually, there was much about D-Day that was a Great Con, much of which has only come out more recently. Lots of clues "accidentally" fell into German hands, including a corpse of a courier, the part-brainchild of Ian Fleming (who also hatched a scheme that sounds a bit like "U-571.") There were lots of real cons going on on the Allied side, so in that light, it is not so improbable that the Germans would try one of their own, if they had had the imagination.

It takes a while for the plot to thicken, say, about half the movie. The details eventually come together nicely, the hallmark of Roald Dahl. The clicking heels was a nice touch as a giveaway. The Germans now face the problem of whom and which version to believe, and the fall back to believing the Pas de Calais option is executed believably. Here, we see hints of the tricks that were played, historically. The movie seems to stay true to the era.

With all the attention to detail, there was one oddity: the coffee, which was served in a French press without any plunger. You cannot make coffee, then remove the plunger, or you will pour grounds into your cup. So this coffee was made, then put in the carafe. Was this a goof, or was it a clue something was wrong with the coffee?

Spoiler alert:

There was.

The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (1946)

Wreaking with atmosphere and fine acting

[8/10 · 4 November 2013]

This movie isn't long so much as it is slow. But it's not flat-footed slow because the viewer is pulled along by the unfolding of events and characters. The movie pays off, especially at the end, so stick with it.

Perhaps modern movies are too fast. It's nice to watch a slow movie for a change, after so many hyper-paced movies. Like many old noir movies, there is lots of atmosphere, a sense of place and time, that is more interesting today, as that era fades from memory. The slow pace gives you time to savor it, and to observe the interactions.

Gradually, we get a sense of the true character of the leads as they are tested by circumstance. The results are not entirely predictable, right up to the end. The plot is fairly intricate, and integral with the characters, something we don't see enough of these days. While I wouldn't say there are any holes in the plot, there are one or two premises that seem a bit off, the biggest that the DA would be allowed to try a case he was a witness to. But perhaps rules were looser back then.

Speaking of the DA, this is Kirk Douglas' first film role, and he knocks it out of the park. Every performance is impeccable, including the secondary actors, Lizabeth Scott and Darryl Hickman. One of the characteristics of noir films is moral ambiguity. Here, it is difficult to figure out who the good guys and bad guys are, at least until the end. Their true characters unfold slowly.

This is a director's movie: much of the credit should go to director Lewis Milestone for making everything just right.

This is also a film connoisseur's movie, an undiscovered gem for someone who has seen "everything." Why it is so unknown is a puzzle. Perhaps it was the timing, just after the end of WWII, and being an especially dark noir, unlike, say, The Maltese Falcon, which was leavened by a surprising amount of wry humor. But I think the biggest reason is that it simply isn't a movie most people will want to watch several times: partly because it is too dark, and also because it is so dependent on the ending. The classic noir films can be savored many times over the years.

Nevertheless, I highly recommend film lovers see The Strange Love of Marth Ivers at least once.

The Gang's All Here (1943)

... but not Busby Berkeley's brain

[2/10 · 26 September 2013]

Plot? What plot? Busby Berkeley don't need no stinkin' plot! ("Stinkin'" being the operative word.)

But it would have helped if there had been some memorable music, as in the old days of 42nd Street, Gold Diggers, etc. The dancing wasn't even attractive, the visual effects numbers were sloppy, as was the camera work.

The final number was the best, as is always the case with BB movies. But this time he resorts to trick photography to get his famous effects. You finally get to hear Alice Faye's voice at its best. She sings earlier on the Staten Island Ferry with magical orchestral accompaniment, a recycled BB gimmick.

The surrealism of the older black and white BB movies was cute, within the context of an otherwise coherent storyline. But here there is no story, no decent script to diverge from -- the whole thing is one long divergence.

Frankly, I suspect he was burned out from doing too much drugs. Look at his stuff: it is obviously psychedelic, especially the final number here. Sure, this was the 30s and 40s, but we're talking Hollywood, just up the road from Mexico, mescaline and psilocybin. Yes, the old folks knew about that stuff. Look at some of those movies from the period, like W.C. Fields' stuff and Hellzapoppin'. They were playing mind games. And as we know all too well today, drugs only take you so far toward creativity in the arts; you need some real talent and work, too.

I think Busby Berkeley's brain was fried by this time. (Paducah - bazooka???) That might be why MGM dumped BB on RKO (that, plus the fact that he had already killed four people while intoxicated in a car accident and driven Judy Garland into a nervous breakdown).

Of course, if it is you who is high, this movie might actually be interesting, or at least the final number. But the final number would have worked better if it somehow expressed the girls love for the boy, in a swirly sort of way. Instead, it is about polkas and polka dots. And we never get to see boy say to girl: I love you.

I'm looking at this wondering what Oscar Hammerstein would have thought as he sat in the theater. There were probably a few things that got laughs that he might have noted, plus a lot of patrons squirming in their seats. But mostly Rodgers & Hammerstein tried to do the opposite of this musical, striving for integration of story and music. Here, the songs were written for a different, unmade film, so there is no true integration -- it is also the beginning of the end of an era of these ad hoc sort of musicals.

Hammerstein evidently noticed Charlotte Greenwood (though he would have known her from Broadway): he cast her as Aunt Eller in the movie version of Oklahoma!, already on Broadway by this time.

Look for what looks like a video blue screen effect near the end. As it was strictly film, this, I believe, was an early example of film blue screen, pioneered by RKO.

Wikipedia: "In filmmaking, a complex and time-consuming process known as "travelling matte" was used prior to the introduction of digital compositing. The blue screen method was developed in the 1930s at RKO Radio Pictures."

So, why did I watch this wretched movie? I was curious about the song "Brazil," used extensively in the eponymous movie. This song opens the movie, but as it is sung in Portugese, it has no discernible meaning to the film, a portent of things to come. The title also makes zero sense: What gang? All where?

Watching this seemingly endless stream of inanity, I whiled away the time contemplating which movie was worse: "The Gang's All Here," or "Too Many Girls." I think the prize goes to "The Gang." I cracked a smile and may actually have laughed once during "Too Many Girls." On the other hand, The Gang actually triggered my gag reflex several times, mainly scenes with Carmen Miranda. It's not every day you see a movie that makes you physically nauseous.

And, as I watched, I actually felt pity for the poor professional movie reviewers of the day, who had to sit through the whole thing. I don't know how much they got paid, but it wasn't enough. On the other hand, they got their revenge in print.

Spoiler alert:

Oh, the "plot": Boy meets girl. Boy says something about love, but lies about his name for some mysterious reason. Boy goes off to war. Girl thinks he is going to marry Girl #2. Boy comes back from war. Girl #2 says, "Nevermind, you take him." The end. Except it takes more than 100 long minutes to get to the end ... and pretty much the end of Busby Berkely.

The Gang's All Here may be the worst movie with real actors from a real studio I have ever seen, or ever want to see.

It Happens Every Spring (1949)

Based on a true story

[6/10 · 14 September 2013]

Once, all things were new. And when It Happens Every Spring was new it probably didn't look as tired as it does now. Sure, there were some great, artistic movies made around 1949, but also some really cheesy stuff. The Adventures of Superman was three years away, and it was a huge hit. Not only is there a resemblance between Ray Miland fiddling with his black frame glasses and Clark Kent, but people back then were quite willing to suspend disbelief for some fun escapist fantasy.

You don't hear as much these days about the need to be willing to suspend disbelief, but that's what you are doing for certain types of movies. It's as though there is a plumb level that points straight down for realistic stuff, but is adjusted off plumb to a certain degree by the director at the beginning to establish an alternate reality for a movie or TV show.

Now, it's interesting that this movie is set up with a professor talking about chemistry. Way back then in the 1940s scientists were doing some stuff that must have looked pretty astounding to the average layman. Today, we look at the basic premise of a chemical designed to repel insects that instead repelled wood and sneer, but in 1949 the audience might have thought, deep down, "who knows?" Science was almost magical.

So the director is setting the plumb, say, 45 degrees off. But it's not way off -- 90 to 180 degrees -- like some dumb modern movies that bear no resemblance to reality. The actors still bear a reasonable resemblance to real people, at least by Hollywood standards -- say 10 to 25 degrees off plumb. But the rest of the situation requires the level stay 45 degrees off, stuff like using a glove with a hole in it and thinking he can get away with a fake name, no pictures and no background identity -- stuff in the cynical modern drug testing post 9/11 world we know no one could every hope to get away with now. But we have agreed to suspend belief with the opening premise to 45 degrees, so the rest goes with the package.

A lot of cynical modern viewers post all sorts of critical comments about old movies like this and think they are clever, completely missing the point. Each era seems to have a willingness to suspend disbelief in somewhat different ways. When Goldfinger came out, most people were just blown away with what seemed a great picture. Now, to me, it looks more like Swiss cheese. The closer you look (with the hindsight of home video), the less sense it makes. Yet it's still loads of fun. Today, young viewers are willing to suspend disbelief about all sorts of fantasy movies like Inception and Hunger Games that just leave me cold because I can't.

In 1949, people paid their money for a bag of popcorn and some escapist fun, and It Happens Every Spring hit the spot. In the 1950s, it was Damn Yankees, which was probably inspired by this movie, and which faced some of the same plot holes. In the 1960s, it was The Nutty Professor and The Absent Minded Professor (I can't, believe I ever watched that stuff!), plus a fun Twilight Zone episode about a robot pitcher named Casey. And from there it was just dumb and dumber. But there were also The Natural in 1984 (same plot holes), and The Rookie in 2002, which didn't require suspending belief because, according to Hollywood, it was based on a true story.

From the 2013 perspective, It Happens Every Spring looks better than some of the more recent stupid stuff, but otherwise rather dull. You have a basic plot that unfolds pretty straightforwardly, with just a bit of suspense about the ending. The early scene of his testing the baseball against a stick of wood was amusingly bad from the perspective of DVD-computer slow motion. Do a freeze frame and you see the ball being jerked up about the same time he begins to swing the stick.

The best part, for a movie buff, is seeing some fine old names from movies and TV, like Jessie Royce Landis (North by Northwest) and Lt. Tragg (Ray Collins), plus Alan Hale Jr. (the Skipper) and Ed Begley (not junior). That's one reason to recommend it, the other is if you are a baseball movie buff.

Most modern viewers I think would not enjoy this movie, in part because they need more special effects and loud music to pound them into suspending their disbelief. But perhaps this will help: It Happens Every Spring is based on a true story.

Really.

A Ride Along the Lincoln Highway (2008 TV Movie)

And inspiration to follow the road less taken

[7/10 · 12 September 2013]

I've seen far too many Americans who rarely venture more than, say, 50 miles from home. How many Americans have seen America?

In this documentary we see Americans who have traveled coast to coast tracing the Lincoln Highway, and people who love to take shorter weekend trips exploring the old route in more detail around their home. Either way, the high definition video captures the excitement and feel of the road. I hope it inspires viewers to experience the Lincoln Highway for themselves, or at least explore off the beaten path of the Interstates and franchise food alleys.

This documentary gives you a feel for the history of the route, and for those remnants of history that remain. As a small child we once stayed in an old auto court with individual little cabins, and it has always remained burned in my memory. It was nice to see that some still survive, even with well preserved interiors. Very cool.

Wanderlust has been in our blood for centuries.

Long before my time there was a series of juvenile novels (which I found in an antique book store in Port Washington as a child) called "The Motor Boys," that described some youths, an automobile, a compass, and lots of canned food exploring America around 1906.

Closer to my time, there was Jack Kerouac and "On the Road." Not long after, there were the "See the USA in Your Chevrolet" TV commercials (check Youtube). Then Charles Kuralt, whose "On the Road" vignettes have some of the same feel as Rick Sebak's film. Those who remember these are getting a little decrepit, a fact I can attest to, and which is evidenced by the Lincoln Highway club members. But perhaps they were once, when young, inspired by Kerouac and Chevrolets and Kuralt, and even Robert Frost, to follow the road less taken. Today, for some, that is the Lincoln Highway.

I have seen America and North America, from coast to coast, corner to corner, and all the states and most provinces in between. Sadly, a lot has changed, and not for the better, once verdant valley vistas filled with development and shopping centers. Young people, see it while you can. I hope this film inspires you to help document and preserve some of the history of roads in your area.