Change Your Image
fdextro
Reviews
Pray for the Wildcats (1974)
70s TV Time Warp
ABC hyped the premiere of this pop culture mind bender as "the television event of the decade". They may have been right. Written by Hack, I mean Jack Turley, it's a heavy-handed quilt of morality clichés as we follow three advertising execs (Shatner, Reed and Gortner) willing to do anything to land a big account. They make Darrin Stephens and Larry Tate look like models of integrity. This time, they agree to go on a motorcycle road trip to Mexico with a crazy rich (or is that Ritz?) cracker played by Griffith in an image-shattering performance. He forces them to wear matching leather jackets emblazoned with a "Baja Wildcats" logo, while underneath sporting what look exactly like extra-large long-sleeved Star Trek t-shirts. With a set-up like this, how can you go wrong? Well, for one thing, trying to jam in a bunch of soap opera backstory before the big ride.
Shatner, wearing one of his funniest toupees (with sideburns to match), is having a serious midlife crisis. His job is in jeopardy, he's cheating on his wife, and, worst of all, the boss tells him to get some new suits with wider lapels (this is the 70s, after all). He takes out a life insurance policy and contemplates suicide for much of the movie. In a reversal of Griffith's performance, Shatner actually underplays his role but does it so turgidly; he still comes off as a pompous ham.
Then we have Reed, still decked out in a full-Brady afro. He's married to Dickinson and things aren't going so well for them either. (In fact, she's the one having an affair with Shatner.) It's impossible to watch today and not read gay subtexts into Reed's dialogue, especially when he tells Dickinson, "The man you married lived in an apartment with only one closet." Delicious.
Meanwhile, Gortner plays a proto-yuppie prick, willing to sell-out and sacrifice anything and anyone for the sake of his career. He can't even give his girlfriend a committed answer when she tells him she's pregnant. Willing to abort it if he says so, Gortner can't be bothered right now with making a decision. He's got a road trip to run. The women gather together to say goodbye and the Wildcats begin their fateful odyssey. That's too bad for us watching because we now have to squirm through what seems like an hour (it isn't, though) of random motorcycle mania. Worse than the similar biker bores in THE ACID EATERS, try not to fall asleep because you'll miss some of the most incredible made-for-TV moments ever devised.
The first takes place in a cantina. Griffith has been tossing back tequila boilermakers and makes a drooling play for some poor hippie girl dancing her little hips off. The expected fight breaks out and our trio now have to face the fact that Griffith may be a total psycho. Gortner gets drunk and tries not to care. However, Reed and Shatner have a real heart-to-heart talk about responsibility and whether all this is worth some advertising job. The scene ends with another classic Reed-subtext line as he asks a heavily buzzed Shatner, "I'm going' back to the hotel. You wanna tag along?" Shatner declines the invite with a warm and knowing smile.
The other key scene involves Griffith's confrontation with a hippie couple swimming nude on a beach. He and Gortner ride in and the bad vibes start almost immediately. Griffith shows an interest in the girl and offers the boyfriend a hundred dollars for her, flaunting the whole hippie free love ethic. The boyfriend tells him to get lost, but Griffith loses it in a completely different way. He grabs a hatchet and starts taunting, "C'mon hippie, let's go! C'mon freak!" Instead of bodies, Griffith butchers the hippies' van, pretty much dooming them to slow death because of the distance they would have to walk to reach help. Of course, Gortner plays the quivering toady.
Back in Mexico, Shatner finally shakes off his suicidal bent with the realization that he's a better man than Griffith. Referring to the head Wildcat, Shatner says, "He's like acid. He makes people do anything." Reed remains ambivalent and Gortner continues as a self-denying scumbag.
I won't reveal the ending, but I'm sure most of you have a good idea who won't survive. As I said, it's a morality play, but holds little weight as such. The value of this movie relies purely on 60s/70s pop culture appreciation. It's a predictably scripted, flatly directed late-period biker film, led by three attempts at a stereotype breakout. It's also a fun failure and well worth seeking out.
A Christmas Story (1983)
As good in June as in December
May I offer a brief anecdote, much like Jean Shepherd's that created this movie: I showed it to my girlfriend for the first time on a warm summer night. She laughed and laughed, and we both got teary-eyed at the end. As the credits rolled, she turned to me and asked, "Why can't all movies be like this one?" Why, indeed. It's one of those rare moments when everything gels. Who would have thought Bob Clark, director of superior low-budget horror movies like DEATHDREAM and inferior garbage like PORKY'S could capture such an innocent and nostalgic slice of life? Who would've thought Peter Billingsley could turn in the best child performance since the original LEAVE IT TO BEAVER? Darren McGavin gives the greatest performance of his career, and you could say the same about everyone else. Everything just falls into place and later efforts to turn this movie into a franchise, like OLLIE HOPNOODLE'S HAVEN OF BLISS and IT RUNS IN THE FAMILY, only prove the original's special quality can't be replicated.
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
It's as if the original movie died and became this brain-dead zombie version.
SPOILERS (BUT YOU SHOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENIUS AND GARBAGE)
Romero's original had some problems (uneven acting, fake-looking blood), but his film had something to say. He managed to satiate the most rabid gorehound while also appeal to intellectuals with satire on consumer culture. The remake hasn't the wit or inclination to do anything but reduce the original's idea to a show-off visual style and cheap set pieces. The opening 10 minutes has been justifiably celebrated, but the cliches then start piling up nearly as high as the body count. I detested the entire pregnancy angle because of its illogical loop to introduce characters only to dispose of them (including a zombie baby). I'd expect that in some cheapjack slasher movie, but we're dealing with a classic, for crying out loud. This new version, with its hyperactive attitude, may win over modern viewers, but will never stand the test of time.
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
Why do people fight an unkillable enemy? Answer:
The one question that keeps popping up concerning this highly entertaining film is, why do people fight so valiantly against an unkillable enemy? Watch it again and you'll discover that no one believes in the curse. Those dutiful soldiers think they're just attacking a bunch of rag-tag flesh and blood pirates. When these scurvy knaves finally show themselves to be half-rotted skeletons, what are the soldiers to do? Lay down and die? Of course not, because if you were confronted with certain death, I'm sure you'd keep fighting in a manic (though futile) hope that somehow you'll live. In this case, that seemingly stupid effort works because of Depp's infiltration into the curse. Remember, Depp never bothered to lift a sword until he joined the curse, then battled away only to divert attention so the curse could be lifted, thus doing away with his mortal enemy in the most timely of fashion. So mateys, thar is your answer.
The All New Adventures of Laurel & Hardy in 'For Love or Mummy' (1999)
At Best Unnecessary, At Worst An Insult
This is far worse than those awful Laurel and Hardy cartoons of the 60s. They were terrible, but at least they were simple ripoffs of a then Stan and Ollie resurgence. New audiences had rediscovered the pair's comedic genius and the cartoons were mind-numbing garbage geared to cash in on children's interest. It was to be expected. But, how does one even attempt to rationalize this work of... I can't even think of a word. I'm sure the makers hoped it would somehow inspire another Laurel and Hardy revival, but you can't inspire interest in the past with a shallow and unfunny caricature of what made the original so appealing. The impressionists (I hesitate to call them actors) do a Vegas act and that's where it belongs. The plot is even flimsier than those used in the old days, trying to stretch out two-reel ideas for a feature. If this film was someone's first exposure to the REAL Laurel and Hardy, I'm sure that viewer would dismiss the original duo's reputation as senility gone amok. The only movie I hate worse than this is I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. And, you know, these filmmmakers basically did the same thing to Stan and Ollie.
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1978)
Junk Food Period Piece Captures Nadir of 70s Pop Culture
Incredible. Let's take the biggest disco stars (Bee Gees), combine them with the biggest rock stars (Peter Frampton and Aerosmith), toss in the most popular comic star (Steve Martin), and mix in current pop idols (Paul Nicholas) and camp attractions (George Burns). We'll film the entire mess in a Willy-Wonka-on-bad-acid storyline based on vaguely connected Beatles songs. Man, they did a lot of bad drugs in the 70s. This is conglomerate junk food on such a grand scale that it's hard to believe it didn't collectively rot the insides of everyone involved. Only Aerosmith and Earth, Wind and Fire come away musically unscathed, but their participation is a blight nonetheless. When I saw this in a theatre during its original release, that scene where Peter Frampton is on a ledge considering suicide, the entire audience erupted in shouts of "JUMP!". We all booed and hissed Billy Preston's savior act, reaching a peak at the sight of Carol Channing. She also appeared in that mind-bending bomb SKIDOO, so she has the distinction of being in two of the worst rock musicals of all-time. I'm sorry, but this is not a movie "so bad it's good." It's just bad.
Duck Amuck (1953)
You've Seen It, You Know How Great It Is
A cartoon based on its own logistics and the knowledge that we, the audience, know that. Chuck Jones used to say that the crew at Warner Brothers didn't make cartoons for any particular audience, they made the pictures for themselves. But here was an experiment into how much we took the animated characters seriously: would we still laugh at them outside of a "story" that involved nothing but the nature of animation itself? This wasn't the first cartoon to ask such questions, but it defined our relationship with not just cartoon characters, but all actors in cinema. DUCK AMUCK anticipated the modern era of computer animation where reality is based on illusion. Is the world of MATRIX any more concrete than that of Daffy Duck and Porky Pig? I think not.
Horse Feathers (1932)
Arguably better than Duck Soup
Groucho takes control of Huxley College and gives football priority over everything else. That gives this hilarious satire a current edge overshadowing its more dated elements (like prohibition). Besides that, this is the only film actually starring the FOUR Marx Brothers. Zeppo's role remains small, but he has definite presence and provides key plot points. He even gets to sing "Everyone Says I Love You", written by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby. In fact, each brother takes a turn at that same song using different lyrics (with Harpo whistling, of course) in an effort to win sexy Thelma Todd's heart (among other things). This gives their musical numbers an integrity that's often missing, even in A Night at the Opera. Still, I'm not recommending the film for its musical content. Simply stated, Horse Feathers has some of the funniest wordplay ever written. Its wit is equal parts clever and corny, but never falls into the category of stupid. Combine this verbal mastery with outrageous and startling sight gags and you have a winner for the ages. My only complaint is that no one seems to have a complete print. Both the tape and DVD versions are missing some Harpo footage during a scene where the brothers converge in Thelma Todd's apartment. This same scene is nearly ruined by excessive splices. You need a shooting script to understand the dialogue. Yet even with these technical imperfections, Horse Feathers remains a must see. It's the best and purest example of Marxist comedy. Duck Soup, while brilliant, has nearly as much Leo McCarey in it as Marx Brothers. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but Duck Soup remains the only film I can easily see influences from past (or then contemporary) comedians. Again, that's why I place Horse Feathers first: for its purity.
Scrooge (1951)
A classic that lives up to its status
Alastair Sim embodies Scrooge like Bela Lugosi embodied Dracula. All other portrayals must stand comparison. George C. Scott comes close, but so does Mr. Magoo. Aside from that, this production captures Dickens' world equal to earlier classics like DAVID COPPERFIELD and GREAT EXPECTATIONS. It's a must-see, not just around Christmas, but any time you're feeling depressed. I guarantee you'll be giving a goose to someone special the next day.
Dogma (1999)
Flawed but sincere work of theological art; comedic cinematic equal to the Sistine Chapel.
My "summary" is admittedly overblown, but Smith's interpretation of ever-changing Catholic dogma is as striking as Michelangelo's traditional portrait of a moment, if not nearly as beautiful. The in-built chaos and repetition of themes represent real life and history, threads so messy and inexplicable that they force you to seek faith in a higher power. Well, maybe not force you, but give you an idea. And as the film points out, abstract ideas are much more positive and fruitful than unshakable beliefs. An idea is unbound; a belief is constraint.
"Dogma" is not easily praised or criticized. Smith often goes for the cheap joke (his "s**t demon" is the worst) and obvious statement (or what should be obvious), but he has a rare gift for insightful dialogue and supportive direction. His characters are as verbose as in any Tarantino movie, but they spout divine parables along with the one-eyed winking juvenile obsessions. What makes Smith a great artist is that he manages to keep both extremes in balance, equally funny and moving. He's also lucky enough to be blessed with incredibly talented actors. Everyone in "Dogma" is first rate, although Smith blunders in his handling of the picketing anti-abortion crowd. They're presented in a campy moronic style reminiscent of the anti-porn protesters in John Waters' "Polyester". What worked with Waters (another Catholic, by the way) seems out of place and needlessly cruel in this movie. Smith makes his point of how religious zealotry can lead to obsessive and destructive behavior much more eloquently through Rufus, the 13th apostle written out of the Bible because he's black. Smith obviously has his satirical knife sharpened, he just needs a little more restraint on how to use it.
Those looking for another all-out Smith comedy like "Clerks" or "Mallrats" will be disappointed. Even though Jay and Silent Bob are ostensibly the major heroes, their stoner antics take a backseat to Bethany's rediscovery of faith. (If you want a plot description, look elsewhere.) For all the bullsh-- protests, "Dogma" stands out as one of the few movies in recent times to reaffirm the existence of God. Its "blasphemy" lies in our God-given right to make choices and interpret what we've been told. The movie presents a fictional Armageddon ordained by the Pope, so Catholics had to blindly get up and protest. That behavior suggests that the "ism" in Catholicism is akin to alcoholism.
And by saying that, as a Catholic myself, I'm destined for hell. Or at the very least, to be "told" I'm going to hell.
In the meantime, check out Pasolini's "The Gospel According To St. Matthew". It's as pure and faithful an account of Christ's life as you'll ever see on film.