Jennel2 Reviews

Leo (2002)

Ambition Should Be Encouraged Not Scorned

[8/10 · 25 June 2004]

I agree with the reviewer who wrote that "Leo" is vulnerable to charges of being pretentious. It also dips into melodrama in a couple scenes involving Dennis Hopper's stock villain, and some of the other characters needed to be fleshed out more. However, I would much rather see a first time director tackle a project with the complexity and ambition of "Leo" than to have them make yet another pseudo wry, post modern, Tarantino imitation, or, worse, a boring, routine slasher film. Therefore, I applaud Mehdi Norowzian for his effort, even if his reach may currently exceed his grasp. I will look forward to seeing future efforts from a director who obviously has talent. BTW, I think one of the "external reviews" makes an issue of Norowzian's background in commercial work. I don't understand the negative view of this. Many talented filmmakers got their start directing commercials or music videos. Robert Altman made industrial films before his first, undistinguished feature, which starred future "Billy Jack," Tom McLoughlin. A person has to learn their craft somewhere. There are only so many Orson Welles types who spring forth a genius in their first effort.

Too Far to Go (1979 TV Movie)

For Those Who Love Literate, Intelligent Drama

[10/10 · 14 September 2003]

Based on a series of John Updike stores, which were published in the New Yorker magazine over a period of twenty years, "Too Far To Go," is one of the most incisive, and emotionally honest depictions of both the joys and sadness of marriage ever put on film. Updike's stories of upper middle class WASP characters are justly considered among the best short stories written by an American post World War II, through some readers (and some viewers, in the case of this film) may be less able to achieve empathy with such characters, with their highly paid jobs, and their secure life style, in which prep school and Ivy league educations are the norm. But Updike's themes (at least in the short stories) are universal. In "Too Far To Go," one of the rare TV movies which later received theatrical release, Michael Moriarity and Blythe Danner portray Richard and Joan Maple, from the idealistic beginning of their marriage in the late fifties, to the disintagration of it in the late seventies, under the weight of mulitple affairs by each, and the attendant deceit and resentment these affairs cause. It's a measure of Updike's skill as a writer that he is able to make characters who betray each other, and their own principles, sympathetic. It's as if he's pointing out that we start with the best intentions, but, through our inability to trust, or know another's heart, we poison and destroy that which we hold most dear. One of the stories' and this film's points departures from the conventional treatment of such issues is that, through all their fights and casual cruelty to each other, Richard and Joan still love each other, even at the final scene in the courtroom in which their divorce ritual mirrors their marriage ceremony, twenty years before. Moriarity and Danner are both excellent. Those familiar with Moriarty only through his TV work on "Law and Order," and his later supporting roles in theatrical films, might be surprised by the depth and quality of his performance here. But, in the seventies, Moriarity was considered an up and coming, serious actor, as his performance here and in "Bang the Drum Slowly" (1973) attest. Blythe Danner, Gwyneth Paltrow's mother, gave fine performances in films as diverse as "The Great Santini," and "Hearts of the West," but her performance here, as Joan Maple, may be her best on film. As Janet Maslin said when "Too Far to Go," was released into the theaters after being shown on TV, "We can now go the movies and see this remarkable Drama. " And, as Washington Post TV critic, Tom Shales, wrote at the time, "This is a production for which no award would be good enough." Do yourself a favor, and search out this fine, nearly forgotten film. I found a copy of it recently in a bin of three for ten dollar VHS tapes. Rent it or buy it, if you are a fan of fine drama, you will not be disappointed.

Great Moments in Aviation (1994)

Has Its Moments (slight spoilers)

[9/10 · 2 August 2003]

Perhaps the video title ("Shades of Fear") and plot summary are a bit deceptive, and designed to lure fans of Agatha Christie style mysteries. However, I was impressed with the script's comic tone, and the dialog, which mostly avoided cliches. The directness of some of the dialog was undercut, a couple of times, by a conventional use of swelling music during dramatic, confessional scenes; and some of the character developments were a bit too pat. The missionaries played by Redgrave and Tutin, for instance, confessing their sensual affection for each other, after years of denial was a bit much. Not for those looking for a traditional British chamber mystery, but rewarding for other reasons: the acting (especially John Hurt's performance), the very good photography (rarely has food been so lovingly depicted by the camera), decent period atmosphere aboard the ocean liner (loved the little extra touches like the horses in the cargo hold), and the somewhat unconventional protagonist. A bit too much like a Hallmark greeting card at the end, but interesting and enjoyable for the most part.

The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun (1970)

Dwells Outside the Realm of Good and Bad

[8/10 · 29 July 2003]

"Lady in the Car..." is not a great or even good film, yet I agree with the person who called it "oddly hypnotic." It's true that the last third of the movie is terrible, and the explanation of why and how the Reed character framed Eggar's character is ludicrous. Still, the first two-thirds are a wonderfully rendered time capsule of the late sixties. Samantha Eggar was fresh and beautiful, and her performance gave the film (or at least that first two thirds of it)a degree of interest the plot itself did not deserve. It's been fifteen years since I saw this film, but I would love to see it again. I would turn it off when the John McEnery character is introduced.

Under Heavy Fire (II) (2001)

Rises Slightly Above an Average B Movie

[9 July 2003]

Sidney Furie has taken something of the low road since those promising early films in the seventies, including another Vietnam movie, "The Boys in Company C." "Going Back," or "Under Heavy Fire," the new video title is not in the class of that earlier effort, but I give Furie credit for trying to make a statement about this increasingly forgotten war which left so many scars on us as individuals and a society. Neither the budget nor some of the actors are up to the task of presenting the kind of film Furie wanted to make here, and the overall compromises to the B movie market ultimately sink the director's finer aspirations. Still, credit must be given for the attempt. Especially in a time when the far right is offering revisionist fantasies like "We Were Soldiers" in an attempt to convince a new generation that this ugly, horrible war was somehow noble. Perhaps some of those who pick up this video expecting a gung ho war movie will be persuaded by its tone to see that this was not a victory to be celebrated, but a hard lesson in the limits of our power. This is a lesson our current president sorely needs to learn.

Focus (I) (2001)

Good Intentions...But Poor Execution

[4/10 · 22 June 2003]

If good intentions were enough to produce a good film, I would have rated the turgid, ponderous, obvious "Focus" a bit higher than 4. Macy does his best, but as an earlier poster commented, Miller's little parable asks us to suspend disbelief too often. Perhaps the novel gives us a bit more background on Newman, so we can understand how someone who is obviously not without intelligence could be so dense in perceiving the attitudes of those around him. I agree with another reviewer that if one is unaware of how bigoted average citizens were in America during this time period, then this movie might be an eye-opener. I grew up in the fifties, and the "good" pastors of my Lutheran church found nothing wrong with having the church picnic at a commercial beach, whose sign prominently indicated that no Jews or blacks would be admitted. It is difficult for young people today to understand that this was the norm, and not just in the South. As late as 1964, when I graduated from a somewhat racially integrated (but sexually segregated) public high school in Baltimore, my black classmates could not attend the traditional "father and son banquet," as it was held at a facility which did not admit blacks. Sadly, it was an establishment owned by a Jewish family. The subject matter of "Focus" is important, and we should never forget, despite the lingering signs of racism in modern America, how truly repulsive the attitudes of that previous generation were.(The "greatest generation," indeed). So, perhaps this film is somewhat valuable in countering the recent wave of sentimental crap about the forties from the likes of Steven Spielberg and Tom Brokow. But in the end, as in "Far From Heaven," the filmmakers' good intentions are undermined by having a protagonist so ridiculously oblivious to the social conventions of their time.

Serving Sara (2002)

More Proof

[2/10 · 21 February 2003]

The absolutely unfunny "Serving Sara" is more proof that, other than Lisa Kudrow, the entire cast of "Friends" should be barred from making theatrical films. There must be a small group of people, who happen to be casting directors for bad comedies, who think Matthew Perry is talented. I certainly can't see why from this dreadful "performance." His "Joe" is totally without charm, wit, or humanity. The only thing I can say in Perry's defense is that even a better actor could not have made much from this dud of a script. Why did Liz Hurley sign on for this piece of dung? And poor Bruce Campbell, who can be good comedic actor with the right material, is given nothing to work with here. Hope this was a financial flop, so that the untalented director and writers are not given another opportunity to bore us to tears with their alleged sense of humor.

Shake, Rattle and Rock! (1994 TV Movie)

Light Hearted Fun

[8/10 · 17 November 2002]

I did not see this cable movie when it originally played on Showtime in 1994. I just grabbed the video off the dollar rental rack at my local supermarket's video dept. the other night, and I was pleasantly surprised. Well, I did see Allan Arkush's name listed as director, and felt if it was anywhere close to his "Rock n' Roll High School" (1979) it would be worth a look. I enjoyed the fact that Arkush cast the heroine of his 1979 film, P.J. Soles, and the actress who played her best friend in that movie, Dey Young, as two of the mothers objecting to rock and roll's influence on their kids. Mary Woronov, who played the evil principal in RnR HS, and Dick Miller, who played a policeman or fire chief in the first film, also appear under the same character names. Fans of cult actor Miller will note that he uses the name Paisley, which he first used in the Roger Corman Beatnik spoof horror movie "Bucket of Blood" in 1959. Yes, this is not up to the level of John Water's "Hairspray," but it is a fun movie with generally good performances, including one by sixties soul singer Ruth Brown, who was also in the Water's film. I generally avoid Howie Mandell like the plague, but he was OK here as the fast talking hipster DJ. Zellweger, John Doe, Gerrit Graham, Max Perlich, and (especially) Jennifer Lewis all give good performances and seem to be having fun in roles familiar from dozens of old American International drive-in movies. Makes me hope Dimension will release more of the "Rebel Highway" Showtime series, which all took their titles from AIP "classics."

Joy Ride (2001)

Why, John Dahl?

[26 September 2002]

Could this film really be the work of the same man who made "The Last Seduction" and "Red Rock West?" Those were knowing reworkings of noir films, which managed to trump their prototypes. "Joy Ride" is a kiddie thriller, hardly above the level of a film in any of the slice and dice horror series of the 1980s. The "acting" was of the WB variety. This is a major step in the wrong direction (no pun) for Dahl, but then he is not the first director who made a few exceptional films only to then turn to making tripe to pay the bills. Sadly reminiscent of the career of James Foley, who, after making the near great "At Close Range" and "After Dark My Sweet," disappeared into the world of bad B movies that go straight to video.

The Yards (2000)

Shallow and cliche riden, but good cast.

[17 September 2002]

In the movies, it always amazes me that people running a sophisticated and successful business scam, always decide to "go over the top" just when an outsider has come on the scene. If the thugs employed by the Phoenix character to make sure Caan's company got the lion's share of city contracts operated as crudely as they do in the scene where Walberg's character beats a cop half to death, they would have been busted the first or second time out. And why does Caan's Frank give in so easily to letting Leo join Willie's crew when so much is at stake? Besides the usual lack of logic, the film commits the ultimate sin of being just plain boring. As someone else wrote, too many characters with no reason given to care about any of them. Nice to see some good actors getting a paycheck, but this film is a waste of time for everyone. And, every time I saw the crooked politician, I kept thinking, "why did they give Steve Lawrence that part, and when is he going to break into a Broadway show tune?"

The Misfit Brigade (1987)

Guilty Pleasure

[7/10 · 1 September 2002]

For almost two years I successfully resisted renting this movie. That resistance was certainly aided by the cheap looking case of the video, and the fact that director Gordon Hessler is known (if at all) in the US only for a trio of cheap, British, AIP horror flicks, "Scream and Scream Again" being marginally the most watchable of the lot. But the desire to see what Hessler and his mostly American TV actor cast would do with such material, and the need for relief from a recent diet of "serious" indie film viewing, pushed me over the edge to spend the whole one dollar rental fee. Obviously "the Misfit Brigade" is no masterpiece, but it was far better than I expected, and, as others have pointed out, occasionally rises to the level of pretty damn good. I loved, for instance, the sequence in which the misfits watch a Soviet propaganda film projected on a large screen across the front line. I don't know if this ever happened, and if it did, I doubt he films would have had the big studio production values of the one presented. The bordello sequence was also funny, and reminded me of the humor in some of the better Italian westerns. There was also the occasional visually striking shot. I particularly liked the long tracking shot that begins on a Russian peasant coming to a road, then follows a Russian military vehicle through the gates of a compound, then swoops up on a crane to the roof, where a German soldier is observing the vehicle. Then, in subtitled Russian, someone yells, "There's a Kraut on the roof," and we cut to a shot of the rest of the misfits (some distance away) as we here automatic weapons' fire on the soundtrack. This is damn good sequence. I've read in his mini biography here on Imdb, that Hessler worked for Hitchcock's TV unit at Universal before directing features. This long tracking shot is certainly similar to one of Hitch's, and even shares a bit of the master's dark humor. But, OK, this film is not art. It is somewhat choppy (at least in the U.S. video version), and the low budget shows in some of the action sequences. Still, it's a fun little movie if one can accept its limitations. Even David Carradine seems to be enjoying his minor role as an uptight German officer. Oliver Reed is not on screen very long as a pompous German general who arrives at the end of the film to decorate the misfit heros. I cannot agree that his attitude during the air raid which follows detracts from the film's "realism." This is all slapstick anyway, which accounts for the film's final cut, before some graphic violence would have betrayed it's lighthearted mood.

Cypress Edge (1999)

Hack Work

[7 August 2002]

I'm glad to see this wasn't Rod Steiger's last film, as this piece of dreck would be a horrible memorial for anyone. Steiger is the only reason I rented it. I should have known better, as I've seen writer/director Serge Rodnunsky's name on numerous B movie video sleeves, all of which (you can tell just by looking at them) are junk. Besides Steiger this alleged thriller wastes the talents of Brad Dourif and Charles Napier, both capable character actors. Rodnunsky's half-baked script does them all in, as does the poor continuity and shaky camera work. It's a shame, as the story, while trite, could have been given a fresh treatment by a writer with some real talent. Instead we get disjointed scenes of street revelers randomly intercut with supposed action scenes (generally bad chase scenes, by boat, car and on foot). The New Orleans locations look great (when the cameraman isn't attempting to imitate an episode of the old "Homicide: Life on the Streets" TV series). But the endless, boring conversations between the protagonist, Bo, and his girlfriend (whom he left waiting at the altar after his mom committed suicide) are excruciating. Steiger seems to have been either given no direction or ignored it, as his scenes consist of trite speeches about being innocent, interrupted by senseless screaming. Brad Dourif is generally reliable as a villain, but his part here is so underwritten there's nothing he can do except try to look menacing. And, although there are a number of awful "performances" in this piece of tripe, the award for worst acting has to go Ashley Lawrence as the protagonist's girlfriend (an assistant DA in one of the most crime ridden cities in America, who, nonetheless, doesn't seem to have a single case to work on). Lawrence's performance reminded me of those obligatory "serious scenes" in porn movies between the sex acts.

Julian Po (1997)

Where's the Point?

[4/10 · 10 July 2002]

I really, really wanted to like Julian Po. I think that Slater is underrated as an actor, and that many of the supporting players here are better than they are given a chance to demonstrate in this film. I realize this is based on a short story which I have not read. So, I do not know if what I see as the film's faults originated with the story, or were imposed on it by the director/screenwriter. The premise is wonderful, and I loved the voiceover, confessional tone the opening narration strikes. But then...? Nothing! Several of the cliched local characters ask Julian pointblank to explain his intention to commit suicide. One could argue that he doesn't answer, because it's none of their business. But Julian is the one who, under only token pressure, blurted out his intentions in public. Then neither Julian nor the director/writer, despite the fact that the Julian character is keeping a tape recorded journal for God's sake, seem inclined to provide anything beyond the scant initial information on Julian's life. He says he was a bookkeeper. He says his family moved around when he was a child, due to his father's job. So what? There are several interactions with the locals which seem designed to illuminate Julian's purpose. But none of them go anywhere, because Julian seems to regard all these dopey locals as if they were aliens from another planet, as if he were the ultimate (and only) sane one among them. This might work as an allegory, if Julian Po had any defining characteristics or anything approaching wisdom to impart. The closest he comes to revealing anything about himself is in the scene in which he purposely humiliates the naive, religious wife of the mechanic. And what this scene reveals is not anything that would inspire empathy for Julian. I can only see the Julian character --as rendered--as selfish, petty, and totally condescending. Sort of matches the attitude of the director of this half-baked, contrived film. And poor Michael Parks, an actor who once had so much promise, is given nothing to work with here.

Arlington Road (1999)

Great Setup Wasted/Spoilers

[30 June 2002]

Arlington Road had my attention for about the first forty minutes, but then it became ridiculously unbelievable. The notion that dedicated anti-government terrorists would attempt to establish themselves as normal middle class folks in an upscale suburban neighborhood defies everything we know about such radicals in the real world. That they would(as the film implies)go through this elaborate charade in order to recruit the college professor husband of a deceased FBI agent (who was killed investigating another potential domestic terrorist)is ludicrously silly. Jeff Bridges is usually a reliable actor, but here his character is required to engage in such illogical behavior that no actor could make his actions convincing. I actually found his character so annoying that I was hitting the fast forward button with regularity in the films final 40 minutes. Tim Robbins is another fine actor, but here he required to play a character who goes from a master at disguising his true character to a cliched Hollywood notion of a right wing boogeyman, all in the blink of a couple scenes. I could go on, but I will probably never convince those who think this is a good movie that it is really a half-baked piece of tripe, with no relationship to the real world. Also wastes Hope Davis, one of my favorite young actresses, as Bridges' graduate student girlfriend (an all too true cliche), who goes from scoffing Bridges' paranoia to foolishly following the terrorists, again with no character motivation. This is a movie made by people with contempt for their audience. They pretend to deal with an important topic, only to exploit it for cheap action thrills.

Heartbreakers (1984)

Overlooked Gem

[8/10 · 18 June 2002]

This film really impressed me when it was first released. Though it was hardly a box office hit, it (and "The Boss's Son") did contribute to Bobby Roth's reputation as a fine independent film maker. Roth captured the late 70s, early 80s LA art scene perfectly. It was a time when many people were having to temper the idealism of the 70s in order to survive. Perhaps its lack of wide success stemmed from the fact that you had to be familiar with Los Angeles at that time to appreciate it fully. Also a great soundtrack, especially the Etta James' songs.

Heist (2001)

Lighten Up Folks

[9/10 · 13 April 2002]

I have seen most of Mamet's work, and I guess, if pressed, I would cite House of Games and The Spanish Prisoner as being superior to this movie. However, I found Heist enjoyable on its own level, and see no need to chastise Mamet for not having some deep message here. I'm not really a big fan of the sub-genre of big score movies. They are all riddled with cliches. The recent Score had the same basic plot(a master thief wants to quit the trade), and that film had even less plausibility than Heist. Entertainment movies are all unrealistic, and Heist is certainly superior to 95% of the routine releases coming out of Hollywood today. I see it as a nice little homage to 40s film noir. I have to presume that many being hyper-critical of Heist would have been less than receptive to The Big Sleep or Out of the Past, had they encountered them when they were first released. Mamet is not ever going to appeal to a wide audience. He won't lower his standards so that the great unwashed can understand his films. SPOILER follows! My favorite exchange between Hackman and DeVito: DeVito: "Don't you want to hear my last words?" Hackman: "I just did."

Rat Race (2001)

I only laughed once

[4/10 · 23 February 2002]

I feel like a bit of a spoilsport in light of the generally positive posts about Rat Race, however I found this movie forced and obvious to the point of tedium. The one scene which coaxed a spontaneous laugh from me was the arrival of Lovitz and family at the WW II veterans convention. Maybe what was missing was the edge of the original Airplane or the the first two Naked Gun flicks. I agree with those who found the ending of this film sticky and sentimental in the extreme. But my main objection is the attempt to substitute constant movement for comic inspiration. It's pretty sad when you can't even make such reliable comic performers as Cleese and Wayne Knight funny. Every time I saw Cleese I kept thinking that he must have a great dentist as those teeth were so white! I think this film needed a much better script and a more subversive attitude. Instead it smugly asks us to admire routines (like the busload of Lucy impersonators) which grow old too quickly. It's sad that the best thing you can say about this turkey is that it's not too offensive to share with children.

The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun (1970)

Flawed But Oddly Hypnotic Thriller

[8/10 · 1 February 2002]

Samantha Eggar was at the highpoint of her career in 1970, and she is very appealing as the victim of an elaborate (too elaborate?) frame for the murder of her boss' (Oliver Reed) wife. The plot has a few gaping holes, and the last third of the film, during which Eggar meets up with a character played by John McEnery, loses its focus completely. Still it is a strangely attractive, even fascinating film for the first two thirds. It captures the flavor of the late sixties quite well. That is surprising, as director Anatole Litvak, best known in the US for his late forties melodramas "Sorry Wrong Number" and "The Snakepit," was in his eighties when he made this, his last feature film. I saw this film on cable about ten years ago, but the version I saw was definitely in English. Dubbed? In sum, an odd combination of road movie and pseudo-Hitchcock thriller. Could have been great, if only the payoff were better.

Wuthering Heights (1970)

Some Good Scenes, But Misses the Mark

[7/10 · 18 January 2002]

This version of Wuthering Heights was pretty much dismissed by the major reviewers back in 1970. Many of those reviewers couldn't get past the American International logo before ridiculing the movie as second rate teen angst. It has been treated more kindly in later years (three stars in Maltin's guide), but the film falls short in several areas. It's true that AIP spent more money on this than they normally did. Even the Corman Poe movies had a lower budget than WH. They hired a few middle level "name actors," primarily Harry Andrews and Pamela Brown (who is in only two scenes). Robert Fuest was not exactly a name director (before or after this) but he had delivered a big hit for AIP in "The Abominable Dr. Phibes." So, this was probably his reward.

I agree that the photography was the film's best asset, and the late John Coquillion, who shot it, went on to a fairly distinguished career, including shooting three Peckinpah films. The decision to film "on location" was also good, and the moors look appropriately bleak.

The major problem for me was not that the movie ends (as the 1939 version did) halfway through the novel, but that the transitions are abrupt and jarring. Now I have only seen it on vhs--the original EMI- HBO tape, not one of the later cheap versions--but I think It was uncut. There is, for instance, an unexplained gap from Cathy's decision to marry Edgar. Suddenly she married him, and his parents are both dead. There was a lame attempt to explain this in a scene of Edgar and Cathy in the graveyard. The sequence of Heathcliff seducing Edgar's sister is trite, as is the "shampoo commercial" ambiance of the love scene between Heathcliff and Cathy.

On the plus side Andrews and Julian Glover (as the adult Hindley) give good performances. I get the feeling that if AIP had been willing to spend a bit more, and maybe rework the script a bit for pace, this could have been a very good film. But as Sam Arkoff was once quoted in an Esquire magazine article about the AIP Beach Party movies, "Sometimes we get some director over here from the majors, and he says 'Sam if I could just have two more days, I could make you a good picture.' The hell with that," Arkoff continued. "We're not 'artsy-fartsy' at AIP!"

The Choir (1995)

Fine Work By All

[8/10 · 2 January 2002]

Fine acting by veteran cast of David Warner, Jane Asher, and, especially, James Fox, as the Machiavellian Dean. Nicholas Farrel is also good as the choirmaster, and Cathryn Harrison is excellent as a woman coming into herself as a person (after the departure of her uncommunicative husband), while trying to protect her prodigy son without holding him back. Harrison, Rex's granddaughter, is also a natural beauty.

Pop and Me (1999)

Sincere and worthwhile

[9/10 · 18 December 2001]

While this documentary lost its focus toward the end (when the son--filmmaker Chris Roe--became a bit whiny), I found it insightful, touching, and often funny. The interactions between fathers and sons in different countries was very interesting, and surprisingly entertaining. While many of the interviews did border on maudlin, there were several fathers and sons whose cultures dictated a colder or more macho relationship. Well done, and should hit home with both Boomers and their Gen-X offspring.

Zone Troopers (1985)

Does anyone understand what "tongue in cheek" means?

[8/10 · 17 December 2001]

Why are some people reviewing Zone Troppers as if the makers had intended to make a serious sci-fi film? This movie was intended as a satire of both alien invasion flicks and cliched World War II movies. While not all the jokes worked, I found the movie throughly enjoyable, and so did several friends who watched it with me at a later date. Band's Empire Pictures did indeed make some real clunkers. But this is no clunker. This movie reunites most of the cast of the earlier Charles Band production "Trancers." That movie was also a satire, though Band's direction was so flat it was hard to tell. Danny Bilson, who directed Zone Troopers, seems to understand the spirit of fun much better. Some of the movie's best bits have been mentioned by other posters, but I would add the beginning sequence when the young Lieutenant rashly runs over the hill thinking reinforcements have arrived, and is machine gunned by the Germans. "Damn green kid," Thomerson (as the tough as nails NCO) mutters, in perfect deadpan echo of hundreds of B war movies of the late forties and early fifties. And did anyone catch the "Buy War Bonds" tag at the end of the credits? How about the fact that the first shot morphs from the cover of a comic book Mittens (Art Lefleur) is reading? That should have served as a hint of the filmmakers' intentions. This movie is a hoot, and was intended that way. I have never seen Bilson's follow up, the Wrong Guys--equally low rated by most posters. But based on Zone Troopers, I sensed he might have the talent to go a long way. However, it appears he was only able to find a career in TV.

Same River Twice (1996)

Great Photography and a Few Good Moments

[6/10 · 8 December 2001]

This movie was obviously a labor of love for director Scott Featherstone, and his cast of unheralded TV actors tries hard. But it's difficult for them to overcome some of the trite characterizations and situations. Shea Farrel (a regular on the old ABC series "Hotel") is saddled with the most cliched role: the father who feels too sorry for himself after a messy divorce to be a good parent to his teenage son (Joshua Keaton). John Putch (Jean Stapleton's son) as a underachieving bicycle mechanic, haunted by guilt over the death of a young river rafting guide years before, and Keven Rahm, as the Putch character's slacker nephew come off best in a big cast. Robert Curtis-Brown narrates this story of four former river rafting guides (Putch, Shea, and Dwier Brown play the other three) who keep a prearranged reunion years after their halcyon days as young men who bonded on the river. Each has a life crisis. Curtis-Brown is happily married, but his young daughter has MD. Dwier Brown, now a succssful attorney, is ambivalent about committing the young artistic woman he has brought along on the trip. The Shea and Putch characters have the problems cited above. I give Featherstone credit for not tying up all the loose ends, but his script and the talents of his actors are not always up to their more dramatic scenes or ambitions. The scenes of the four friends off by themselves at the end of each day (they have all brought people who are part of their current lives) are the best parts of the movie. In these scenes we can believe these guys are good friends who care deeply for each other. But there are nagging problems. It's hard to believe the decent, upstanding Curtis-Brown character would attend this reunion in light of what was happening with his family. And there are too many pat solutions and quick changes of heart for the film to be considerd "realistic." Though the movie is not "preachy," there are a couple of references to God and religion that made me suspect this movie was financed by a Christian group. But then there are issues like the the unmarried couple of the lawyer and the graphic artist that most conservative Christian groups would not condone, so perhaps I'm mistaken. Another thing that bothered me was the Hispanic character being given some of the worst dialogue for someone of his ethnicity since the last "Cisco Kid" episode was shot. He is a stereotype, despite being a mostly positive character. In sum, I credit Featherstone and his cast for their desire to make a interesting, dramatic family film. The whitewater scenes are quite impressive, and the river and surrounding scenery are beautiful. There are also a couple of tunes on the soundtrack by one of my favorite groups, The Subdudes, as well as one by Shawn Colvin.

Class of '63 (1973 TV Movie)

Superior TV Mystery/Thriller

[8/10 · 6 December 2001]

Though its title may have been an attempt to cash in on the then popular "Summer of '43" sequel, "Class of '63" was one of ABC's best movie of the week offerings in the 70s. The plot concerns the ten year reunion of a group of college students, one of whom has hommicidal intentions towards his former classmates, stemming from a romantic slight. But it's not a by the numbers revenge flick. The script is literate and intelligent, Korty's direction is very sharp, and the acting (especially by Cliff Gorman and Joan Hackett) is surprisingly good. I would call it almost noirish. And there is a haunting use of the song "Louise," that contributes to the suspense.

The Skulls (2000)

Missed Opportunity

[3/10 · 5 June 2001]

Considering our current president and his father are alleged to be members of a secret society similar to one in the film, there was a real opportunity to make an insightful movie about the operation and influence of these shadowy organizations. Instead, director Rob Cohen and the screenwriter have fashioned an illogical, poorly acted, substandard genre flick, designed to appeal to an adolescent audience with no political sophistication. The characters are all cardboard cutouts, and I felt embarrassed for the "professional" actors here, like Craig T. Nelson and William Petersen. Petersen's "Virginia" accent is howlingly unconvincing. Plot elements don't add up, there's no real payoff, and the "action" sequences are woeful and ineptly filmed. The film looks like it was edited with a meat cleaver. This is really an awful movie.