tommythek Reviews

Mirrors (1934)

Oops!

[7/10 · 27 November 2001]

Oops! I can't believe I'm taking the time and trouble to actually comment about a 12-minute, black and white, musical short from 1934 titled "Mirrors." But I am! Some 60-odd years ago, there was a type of music video put out for general public consumption called "Soundies." Once upon a time, I used to believe that the "Soundie" was the progenitor of the "modern" (the last 20+ years or so) music video. I now know, with "Mirrors" and a few others of its ancestral relatives, that there were music videos which predated even the ancient "Soundies." I know that these earliest of M/V's go back to at least the early 1930s and back, probably, to the late 1920s, approximately coinciding with the introduction of sound into movies. Uncovering one of these rare gems has to be much akin to making a rare archaeological discovery. ("Look at what I have unearthed, Dr. Leakey! It's a Freddie Rich M/V from the Musicalzoa Era!" "Fine digging, Tommy. Allow me to reward your hard and productive work with this rock-solid American dime." "Gee, thanks, Doc." But I digress.)

Anyone who can handle this kind of music -- and I most certainly can! -- is in for two surprise treats should they happen to catch "Mirrors": the great Jimmy Dorsey on clarinet and the equally great, albeit tragically flawed, Bunny Berigan on trumpet. Those two gents -- alone! -- made the expenditure of 12 minutes out of my life to watch this M/V well worthwhile.

Now, let's see. Let me name all the people whom I expect to read these comments on "Mirrors." Me. One friend in California. The IMDb "User Comments" censor. And .......... Which is perfectly fine with me. As long as "EYE" know that this little hidden jewel exists, that is all that really matters. To me.

One last thought. A VERY BIG THANK YOU to Turner Classic Movies for retaining, maintaining and occasionally showing half-buried gems such as "Mirrors." TCM really does an old nostalgia buff's heart good.

"Oops! Look what I have just found, Dr. Leakey!"

The Black Bird (1975)

One of only 18 people in America

[7/10 · 17 November 2001]

I am proud to declare that I am one of only 18 people in America who actually like this movie. My basis for that statement? There are -- were -- only 17 voters at IMDb who rate this movie at "7" or higher (out of a whopping 50 total votes). My vote of "7" now makes that 18 people who like it.

How unpopular is this movie with everyone everywhere? Very little info is available on it here at IMDb and none at all at Rotten Tomatoes. IMDb users who hate it don't even deem it worthy of the usual brickbats. Only one user has taken the trouble to slice it and dice it and feed it to the sharks (appropos to the movie's ending). Leonard Maltin calls it "DA BOMB" (no stars, not even half of one). If anyone has a complimentary word to say about this movie, I don't know whom that person is nor where he or she said it.

That's where I come in. I think this movie is funny! Well, some of the time, anyway. It's not a laugh riot but it does have a lot of funny stuff in it, especially in the first half. It does start to run out of steam in the second half and by the time they get to the end, it appears that writer-director David Giler was just looking for some way -- any way -- to end it.

George Segal plays Sam Spade, Jr., San Francisco detective and son of his notorious father played by Humphrey Bogart in the original "The Maltese Falcon." And just as in the original, Jr. is once again involved with that black bird, trying to find out who wants it and what's the best price he can get for it. As far as plot goes, except for the ending, the plots of the two movies are fairly similar. And anyone who cares to razz the plot of "The Black Bird" as being nonexistent or worse should first take a close look at the plot of "The Maltese Falcon." The latter, just like the former, has an unfathomable plot. All of which is in no way to say that there is any quality comparison between the two movies. The original is filled with timeless characters, great setups and fabulous dialogue which will live for eternity. That's why it's such a great movie, even with an impossible-to-follow plot. "The Black Bird," on the other hand, is just a fairly decent movie with a number of funny moments and scenes.

George Segal does a good job as Jr. and has a lot of funny dialogue and shtick. Stéphane Audran makes for an alluring love interest and foil for Jr., playing the equivalent to Mary Astor's role in the original. But for me, there are two people who really stand out in this cast. One is old Lionel Stander, a constant thorn in the side to Spade, Jr. The other is none other than Lee Patrick. Just as she did in the original 34 years earlier, she is back once again as Effie, still playing Jr.'s secretary just as she was to his pop. Amazingly, she is much better in this latest version than she was in the original. That's because her later version is a powerhouse character with a ton of dialogue and shtick to go with it. That's something she didn't have in the orignal. But that is the ONLY improvement on the original.

I've seen "The Black Bird" about three or four times. And I still laughed at a number of things I'd forgotten since my last viewing. But I recommend seeing it no more often than about once every 8-10 years, at the most. Any more often than that and it can easily wear thin and lose its best humor.

There is one good thing, one advantage, to being one of only 18 people in America who like a particular movie: lots of elbow room!

Very Bad Things (1998)

Equine Compost Heap

[1/10 · 15 November 2001]

If any of you are in need of some equine compost heap with which to fertilize your gardens, I heartily endorse "Very Strange Things" for such usage. After all, miracle of God and Nature that it is, some of the best things that grow out of planet Earth are nurtured and fed by some of the worst.

Which "V S T." laughingly referred to in some quarters as "silver screen entertainment," most assuredly is. Equine compost heap. Said entertainment, here, has been written and directed by Peter Berg. Peter is not a doctor. He just played one on TV (as Dr. Billy Kronk on the late "Chicago Hope"). Peter is ALSO NOT a writer and director of silver screen entertainment fare. He just THINKS he is. What Peter really is in movies is a producer. He produces, thru his writing and directing, equine compost heap. This is what happens when you work for and hang around someone like David E. Kelley. Mr. Kelley makes it look so easy that any no-talent like Peter Berg thinks he can do it, too.

Logic would seem to dictate that this is the worst movie of the 20th century. Except, of course, for all of the other movies which were also the worst movies of the 20th century. Gee, it's just so hard to choose. Trying to decide on a worst movie of the 20th century is like trying to select a petit-four from the dessert cart at a fancy French restaurant. YOU WANT ALL OF THEM!!!

How do I "love" this movie in its awfulness? Let me count the ways. Acting! Man, have we got us some acting here. If you enjoy actors and actresses doing NOTHING BUT yelling and screaming at each other for 100 minutes straight, then come on in and enjoy this "acting" nonpareil. How would you like to see a hooker get hooked to death on a towel hook in a bathroom? I tellya, it's a scream! Body dismemberments? We got 'em! And what's really fun about it is trying to re-sort the mixed-up parts according to race, ethnicity and religion. Among other "criteria." How about trashing a Jewish funeral? Are we having fun yet?! Let's corkscrew to death the African-American security guard. After all, we're making a "black comedy" here. And while we're doing all this yelling and screaming at each other, let's also see how many other people we can do in -- including among ourselves -- before Peter runs out of film. Brother, I can hardly stop laughing!

And if you think THIS movie is funny, I've got a couple more enormous howls for you: Slavery and The Holocaust. Laugh riots!

Truthfully, I'm embarrassed for myself that I gave this movie such a high rating on IMDb. It's the only movie to which I've ever given a "1." Maybe I'll be able to live that down. But for those of you who love lush gardens. line up. We have tons of equine compost heap for all.

Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle (1994)

Mrs. Parker lays an egg, one bigger, even, than Wall Street.

[5/10 · 12 November 2001]

In late October of 1929, Variety printed one of the most famous headlines in history ..... "WALL STREET LAYS AN EGG." Along about January of 1995, Variety might have repeated that headline, with a slight variation, for this movie: "MRS. PARKER LAYS AN EGG." According to IMDb, this movie amassed the ridiculously puny box-office gross of $2.144. million. That might have been good -- in 1929! But in this modern era, that kind of gross at the box office would not even qualify as bus fare for Bill Gates. Thus, by those standards, "Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle" laid a bigger egg than the one laid by Wall Street 72 years ago.

Just why DID this movie bomb so dramatically with the vast moviegoing public? Probably for a combination of reasons (as often is the case). One reason would be that the general moviegoing public could not relate to it in any way. Today's moviegoers are, for the most part, quite young and most of them have probably never heard of any of these people, much less actually know anything about them. And it matters not a whit how famous any of them might have been in "their day." Also, this movie is nothing if not a talkfest. Most of today's moviegoers, what I like to call the three-second-cut-weaned-on-MTV crowd, need at least the occasional bang-bang shoot-'em-up to maintain their attention and keep them awake. Finally, and perhaps most important of all, the movie is not very good. It is the type of movie which is often referred to as an "interesting failure." I'll even add a fourth reason why I think this movie failed: I'm not sure that it is even POSSIBLE to make a good movie about this subject matter. The real-life characters who are this movie's subject(s), as a group, remind me of the famous part-quote from Shakespeare's "MacBeth," to wit ..... "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

And I have yet another problem with this movie. Before writing this, I read MANY reviews of the movie, those of both IMDb users and professional critics. To a person, they commend the entire cast in all of their roles. I could not possibly disagree more! Take, for example, Andrew McCarthy, who plays Eddy Parker, Dorothy Parker's first husband. This guy has been THE WORST ACTOR IN MOVIES for the last 20 years. As such, he proudly carries both torch and scepter handed down to him by George Nader from many years earlier. When a female (of course!) IMDb user complimented his performance here, I really lost it. Or Matthew Broderick. He's a decent actor but one with a limited range (which does not extend much beyond "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"). Trying to imagine him as Charles MacArthur is a leap across the chasm of credulity which can only end in a fatal plunge. Even Gwyneth Paltrow, an Oscar winner, fails in this movie, playing a character who should not even BE IN the movie. Indeed, Jennifer Jason Leigh, exceedingly annoying as Dorothy Parker, is one of the few actors here who seems up to the task of playing the famous personality to whom he or she has been assigned.

OK, one more. One more reason this movie failed was simply that ALL the famous people portrayed are so dislikable. As the self-appointed literati of The Jazz Age (the 1920s), how much can one stomach watching a group of alcoholics (which they surely were!) slicing and dicing everything and everyone -- including themselves -- to absolute shreds.

This movie didn't just lay an egg at the box office. It was an egg-laying machine!

Broadcast News (1987)

News you can use ..... maybe!

[8/10 · 10 November 2001]

Or maybe not. Whatever anyone thinks of "Broadcast News," good or bad, almost all the credit for that "thinking" belongs to writer-producer-director James L. Brooks. As a screenwriter (of which he has long been one of the best), it is not easy to savage an entire business -- in this case, the "business" being television news -- but to do it with a smile, a wink, a knowing nod and a laugh practically every step of the way. To do all that takes real talent, something Mr. J. Brooks has in abundance.

One user on this website, in his summary, asked the musical question -- "Did Walter Cronkite act like this?" Answerve: No! Of course not! And the reason for that is in Walter's -- uh, Mr. Cronkite's -- day, the only thing that mattered was bringing the news to the people. Same goes for John Chancellor and Chet and David and Douglas Edwards and Howard K. Smith. Sure, they had to pay lip-service attention to their ratings, if only to please their bosses. But all they REALLY cared about was THE NEWS ITSELF.

Now, of course, all that has changed. For the last 25-30 years in the network news business, the only thing that has really mattered is ratings, ratings, ratings. The bottom line. How many bucks will our news division deliver for the network? Don't believe that?

Let's consider "The Big Three": Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings (aka "Stanley Stunning"). All three have now been on the job at their respective anchor desks for the last 15-20 years (Peter actually got his first shot at the national anchor desk way back in the 1960s but was totally unprepared for the job). Of the three, Dan is the one with the greatest in-the-field training as a reporter. Personally, I think all three do terrific jobs as news anchors and are deserving of their positions. All of which has nothing to do with why all three are actually IN those jobs. All three are now in their 60's (Dan is pushing the big 7-0) and all three are still very good looking. And if you think they're still good looking now, imagine how good looking they were in their 40's, when all three were hired for (let's say, "put in") their current jobs. But do you honestly believe that any one of these three would have been "put in" had he looked like, let's say, Fred Gwynne ("Herman Munster"). Or like -- heaven forfend -- ME!!! Not only that, if Dan were retiring tomorrow, a younger (than he is today) Walter Cronkite would not be able to get his old job back. Why? Not pretty enough. And it would matter not a whit that he is, or once was, "the most trusted man in America."

And this is what "Broadcast News" is all about. Tom Grunnick (William Hurt), the next pretty-boy-national-news-anchor-to-be who has trouble with a few minor things, such as thinking for himself, being able to write and knowing stuff. Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), the brilliant news producer with news business standards and ethics, all of which get thrown to the wind when even she falls for pretty-boy-Tom. And Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks, no relation to James L.), a top-notch newswriter and field reporter who has no hope for a national job because he "flop-sweats" behind the anchor desk. And many other such flawed characters whom you KNOW really do exist in the news divisions of the various networks.

"Network" blazed the trail. Eleven years later, "Broadcast News" carried the torch as a worthy successor. In the new millennium, what will be the next movie to savage the business of network "news you can use" ..... maybe. Or maybe not.

Being There (1979)

My philosophy of life.

[10/10 · 10 November 2001]

That's what "Being There" is for me. Just, being there. Which is also why I have always loved this movie so much. The only thing that stops me from naming "Being There" as my favorite movie -- ever -- is that I consider it impossible to name any one movie as my favorite movie -- ever. I mean, can one say that "Being There" is better than "The Wizard of Oz," "Citizen Kane," "The Bridge on the River Kwai," "North by Northwest" or any one of dozens of other classic movies? I cannot, no matter how much I love it. But it is in the same class as all of those classic movies and that's good enough. For me.

"Being There" was the first of "The Big Three" of demi-recent idiot-savant movies, the other two being "Rain Man" and "Forrest Gump." It is also the least popular of the three, the least well-received by movie critics and the least recognized for its achievements in terms of awards. All of which phases me not in the least. When a moviegoer truly believes in and loves a movie, nothing can sway that cine-o-phile from his or her belief and love. And that's how it is with "Being There" and mineself.

I guess what I like most about "Being There" is the multitude of subtle nuances in the plot. Oh, sure. The acting is great. How could it not be with Peter Sellers, Shirley MacLaine and Melvyn Douglas, not to mention the strong supporting cast? But don't forget! In order for actors to have a chance to be great, they have to be given characters that are great to play, as well as meaningful things to say and do. And in this movie, the characters are given all of that by novelist-screenwriter Jerzy Kosinski.

It would be very easy to say this is Peter Sellers' movie, since everything and everyone in it revolve around him. He's the person, after all, who morphs from Chance, the ever simple-minded gardener, into Chauncey Gardner, deep thinker on all matters of great import. But if the other actors were unable to play off of the Chance/Chauncey character in any or some meaningful way, then there would be no movie. "Being There" could never have been a one-man movie. That's why Melvyn Douglas won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of the dying Ben Rand. And as good as Peter Sellers is in the main role, it is, surprisingly, Shirley MacLaine who wins my heart among the three stars.

She plays Eve Rand, Ben's wife, and the person who first "discovers" Chance. In her own way, she's as guileless as Chance himself. She's the first person to perform the "makeover" on Chance, converting him to Chauncey. The rest of the cast just runs with it from there. But in every single scene in which she appears in this movie, without exception, she is warm, tender and loving. Loving of her dying husband -- AND -- of Chance. Er, Chauncey. Every time I watch this movie, I'm ALWAYS hoping for, rooting for, Eve and Chauncey to fall in love, even though I know it would be impossible for the hopelessly empty mind of Chauncey to ever love any woman. And their big "love scene" is as good as it's ever going to get for Eve, even though she doesn't know that. Her performance of a certain act for Chauncey simply because he "likes to watch" (it's TV that he "likes to watch," but she thinks he's referring to something else), is one for the ages. It is scenes like that which make Ms. MacLaine SO LOVABLE in this movie.

All in all, "Being There" sums up my philosophy of life. Just ..... being there. And every time I watch "Being There," I absolutely LOVE ..... being there.

Vertigo (1958)

The best ever? The best Hitch ever?

[8/10 · 6 November 2001]

A lot of people seem to think so. I see people, here, calling this the best movie ever; or, if not that, at the very least, the best movie Hitchcock ever made. To call "Vertigo" the best movie ever is, of course, quite laughable. And as far as it being Hitchcock's best, I judge it to be only about his 4th or 5th best (my personal favorite is "North by Northwest," truly one of the best movies ever). Based on these comments, one might assume that I don't much like it. Right? Au contraire! I think it is a very good movie, one not far removed from excellent. But it does have flaws, minor though they be.

First and foremost, "Vertigo" is a FABULOUS travelogue for late-1950s San Francisco and environs (including Muir Woods in Marin County and Mission San Juan Bautista, 100 miles south of San Francisco). At the time of the filming, I was a high school sophomore in San Francisco. I well remember the film company coming to town to shoot the movie, though I never saw any scenes actually being shot. What I do know is that the movie is most evocative of the San Francisco of that era.

The plot? It's good, I've seen better. Its weakest link is when Scottie (James Stewart) "loses" Madeleine (Kim Novak), or so he thinks, then accidentally "finds" Judy (Madeleine's alter ego -- also Kim) on the streets of downtown San Francisco. I realize that movies often have to have coincidences in order to make their plots work. That said, "Vertigo" has to take a grading markdown for this ridiculously coincidental Madeleine-cum-Judy plot device in order to make this story work. Having lived so many years in San Francisco, I know how difficult it would be -- make that impossible! -- to find one specific person on a downtown street, ESPECIALLY when you're not even looking for that person in the first place. That's how difficult and coincidental it would have been for Scottie to actually "find" Judy. I also didn't care for the way the character Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes) was handled. Was she or was she not Scottie's "love interest" before Madeleine entered the picture? She starts out as a major character, then gradually fades away and by the end of the picture, she has disappeared completely, as if she were never even in the movie. True, Scottie becomes more and more obsessed with Madeleine/Judy, but let's at least let Midge hang in to the bitter end as the crushed girlfriend -- or something!

Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak. The former is my favorite actor -- EVER!!! -- so you know I have nothing bad to say about his performance in this movie. It was just your typically fine performance by "The Man." As for Kim Novak, I see many people, once again here, commending her great performance in this film. Sheesh! Gag me with a spoon, Charlie Brown! Her performance in this movie is barely adequate, at best. Barely. It's no wonder Sir Alfred of the Hitch actually wanted Vera Miles for the role and when he couldn't get her (she was pregnant at the time), had to "settle for" Kim. Talk about a one-note samba performance! Kim is a classic example of a gorgeous woman with no true acting talent who came to Hollywood and was able to break into movies strictly on the basis of her beauty. Unlike some actresses in her category (Julia Roberts is one who comes to mind), Kim never developed one iota as an actress and that is why she had such a nothing career in the movies. Her one talent was to stand there and look pretty -- hopefully with her mouth shut! And she is the major dead weight that prevented "Vertigo" from being all that Hitch hoped and wanted it to be.

Last, I cannot ignore Bernard Herrmann's score for this movie. When it comes to scoring a movie, this is as good as it gets. I don't know all of his scores without looking them up but I seriously doubt that he ever did a better score -- for any movie! -- than the one he did for "Vertigo."

The best ever? The best Hitch ever? For those people who think this movie is -- one or the other -- I commend those people for knowing what they like. I, of course, cannot agree -- to either one. But ..... if only Vera Miles had been available.

Dead Calm (1989)

What is it with Billy Zane and water?

[8/10 · 5 November 2001]

What is it with Billy Zane and water? First "Dead Calm," then "Titanic." Every time this guy gets out on water, he turns into Mr. Hyde. Somebody keep this guy on dry land! Maybe on dry land he'll behave himself and won't annoy nice people like John and Rae Ingram (Sam Neill and Nicole Kidman). What did they ever do to him? They're a couple who are off on a lengthy sea cruise to try to overcome a recent tragedy, the loss of their toddler son in a car crash.

So, there they are, somewhere -- nowhere -- in the vast Pacific. In ..... dead calm. Suddenly! -- along comes a spider that sits down beside her ..... I mean, along comes Hughie -- what a name for a bad guy ... Hughie! -- who is escaping, alone, from his (allegedly) sinking nearby schooner. John decides that Hughie might not be quite right -- duh! -- and sneaks away to investigate the mysterious schooner. When Hughie discovers this, he takes control of the Sloop John B and he and Rae are off to the races for multiple rounds of blood-curdling fun. Poor John, meanwhile, is left behind aboard the schooner, there to do battle with the nasty demons that Hughie left behind.

For all intensive porpoises, "Dead Calm" is a three-character thriller played out almost entirely on the water. And more than a little of it even IN the water. Besides Billy turning into a "waterwolf" every time he gets out on the choppy brine, Sam Neill himself has had his own problems on H2O mit NaCl. Besides "Dead Calm," consider Sam's roles in the problematic-water movies "The Hunt for Red October," "The Rainbow Warrior" and the recent TV movie "Submerged." Maybe he should consider sticking to dry land, too. Such as in the classic 1983 mini-series (about a 10-parter, as I recall) "Reilly: Ace of Spies," which I loved.

And then there's Nicole Kidman. EVEN SHE has bad luck with water. In an effort to recover from her horrifying encounter with Hughie in "Dead Calm," she decided to go on a 10-year "Cruise," which ALSO came to a bad end. Oh, the woe.

Some people, applying that ridiculous concept known as logic, question why Rae did not do away with Hughie at her first opportunity once he'd taken her for a ride on the thrill-a-chill-with-Bill wheel. What would have been the point of that? Had she done so, what would we have then had? About a 30-minute short! And 30 minutes does not a movie make. Rather, director Phillip Noyce had to give her at least 10 such opportunities in order to fill up a good 90 minutes, at which point he could then bring on the dénouement.

So, here's the deal. If any of you are planning a future cruise, before actually boarding the vessel, I recommend that you take a close look at all boarding passengers. If any one of them looks suspiciously like Billy Zane, then I STRONGLY suggest a quick change in travel plans. You know. Just to be on the safe side. Why tempt fate? As my elderly uncle always reminded me, it is better to watch a movie than to actually BE IN a movie. To which I would add, ESPECIALLY if it's a movie with Billy Zane in it and if the word "water" is mentioned but once in the script!

To Have and Have Not (1944)

"Was you ever bit by a dead bee?"

[9/10 · 4 November 2001]

Well, was you? That's Eddie's (Walter Brennan) inexorable question all throughout "To Have and Have Not" to anyone within earshot. And it's only the 3rd or 4th best line in the movie. Seems there's this one line where one person tries to teach another person how to whistle. And another one after a passionate kiss when a gal tells a guy that it's even better when he helps. Duh! But I like what happens after yet another passionate smooch between Bogie and Bacall. She pulls away and says to him, "You need a shave," after which she immediately love-slaps his unshaven face. It's her way of telling him without words that she's attracted to him and she really doesn't give a good hoot whether he shaves or not.

By now, just about everyone knows that this movie is all about "Steve" (Humphrey Bogart) and "Slim" (Lauren Bacall). In their first movie together, the two exhibit an explosive chemistry rarely seen from any other actor-actress combo. As one watches the movie, with the great Howard Hawks putting the two thru their various paces, one simultaneously imagines the two of them falling in love offscreen -- which they did! -- just as they do in this movie. For more on this, I highly recommend Lauren's autobiography -- "By Myself." In that book, she talks about the two of them sneaking around to see each other like a couple of teenagers -- which she was! As I recall, Bogie was still married at the time -- though estranged from Mayo Methot.

As for "T H a H N," there are many other fine elements that make it well worth one's time. A pretty good storyline revolving around the Free French contesting the Vichy French (Nazi collaborators) in Martinique during the early days of World War II. A strong supporting cast much reminiscent of the one in "Casablanca." Great dialogue by novelist William Faulkner and Jules Furthman. Also, a strong musical score ("Am I Blue?" -- "How Little We Know" -- "Hong Kong Blues") by Hoagy Carmichael with a strong assist from Johnny Mercer.

In a very good Humphrey Bogart movie, which this certainly is, one would never suspect that a young ingenue actress, with little training or experience, could scene-steal from a polished veteran like Bogie. And I won't say that she does such in this movie. I do know that she did not want to and was not trying to (her autobiography). The fact is, however, that it took a star actor of Bogie's magnitude to keep Betty from dominating the screen with her earthy sex appeal and pure luminescence. Her sashay out of the bar in the last scene here is enough to make any man weak in the knees. No wonder Bogie tumbled! Both onscreen and off!

So ..... tell me, now ..... WAS you ever bit by a dead bee?

Caddyshack (1980)

The best ever? Duh .....

[7/10 · 2 November 2001]

I FINALLY got around to watching this movie in its entirety. I'd seen bits and pieces of it over the years but never the whole thing all at once. Proud of being the snob that I am, I always considered "Caddyshack" to be about 20 floors beneath my cultured dignity.

Having seen it, I now have come to IMDb to vote on it and to comment on it. I've noticed, first, that a few commenters think this is the best movie ever made. Or, at the very least, the best COMEDY ever made. Conversely, 6,262 voters (to date, counting me) rate this movie at only 6.9 out of 10. Which means that the "silent majority" think "Caddyshack" is just an OK movie. And I'm with the latter group. "Caddyshack" does have its moments, a few of them quite funny, but overall, it's just OK.

Let's face it. There are only four people in this movie: Chevy Chase, Rodney Dangerfield, Ted Knight and Bill Murray. All the other actors and actresses who are in it, young and old alike, are thrown in just to fill in empty holes in the screen. Or to say something when all of The Big Four are debating among themselves as to who has the next one-liner. And usually it's Dangerfield, who tosses out one-liners as if he's throwing rice at a wedding. Most people would probably say his character (Al Czervik) is the funniest in this movie. Not say me. My vote goes to Bill Murray (Carl Spackler -- what a name!), who plays an absolutely insane assistant keeper of the greensward at the uppity Bushwood Country Club. This guy couldn't get a clue if Vanna White herself were handing them out for free, which makes his character all the more lovable in this movie.

There is one classic scene where Chevy Chase (Ty Webb), in preparation for an important match upcoming with the snooty Judge Smails (Ted Knight), is working on his golf game -- in the middle of the night! He accidentally knocks his ball into Spackler's -- uh -- "living quarters." In the course of attempting to get Spackler's permission to "play thru," the two of them have the most inane conversation you could possibly imagine.

I can imagine that Brian Doyle-Murray (Bill's brother), Harold Ramis and Douglas Kenney, the three co-writers, must have had great fun writing the script (such as it is) for this movie. I can picture the three of them, in many late-night writing sessions, trying to top each other's one-liners -- and the more lowbrow the one-liners, the better.

Though the movie does have, as I've said, some funny lines and scenes, it is mostly just a "cut-and-run" from one scene to the next -- unrelated -- gag or scene. If one appreciates a COMPLETE movie of this type -- and from this era (1980ish, give or take a few) -- one would do much better with the likes of "Animal House," "Airplane" or "Ghostbusters."

Don't forget! "Caddyshack" is the type of movie that attracts those people who are attracted to the lowbrow in almost anything. The "Best Ever" movie? No. The "Best Comedy Ever"? I don't think so. Remember, those members of the cultured intelligentsia, such as myself, rarely stoop to the level of a "Caddyshack." It really is beneath us. But if one does so stoop, one will actually find a few laughs therein. What a surprise!

The Stork Club (1945)

A movie for dieters!

[7/10 · 29 October 2001]

Why is this a movie for dieters? Because it is so lightweight! Try to control your hysterical laughter at my most amusing joke. But seriously, folks, I wanna tellya .....

For those movie viewers who like to think about what they're watching while they're watching it, this movie is not for you. For those movie viewers who want to simply forget about what ails the world and who have no better way to pass about 1¾ hours, this movie is for you. Oh! To halfway enjoy this movie, it also helps if you like old movies, now-dead movie stars and mostly forgettable music which has long since been forgotten.

The main beneficiary of this movie was none other than Sherman Billingsley. He was the owner and proprietor of New York City's famous Stork Club. Not only did he get to have a movie named for his popular nightclub, but he's also a main character in the movie. Talk about your free publicity! Unfortunately for Shermie, he did not get to play himself in the movie. That task fell to Bill Goodwin, George and Gracie's renowned radio announcer. But the real stars of this piece of fluff are the effervescent Betty Hutton and the movies' favorite persnickety Irishman, Barry Fitzgerald. The plot revolves around romantic mixups involving Betty, Barry and Bill -- the three B's? -- as well as Don DeFore and the inimitable humorist, Robert Benchley. It's the type of contrived plot that tests the credulity of even the most tolerant viewer, so you can imagine how the intolerant are likely to react.

For me, the movie's most disappointing aspect was its music. And that's the main reason I had opted to watch it! This movie employed some of the top songwriters of the 1940s (as well as of other decades) -- Hoagy Carmichael, Paul Francis Webster, Jule Styne, Sammy Cahn, Jay Livingston and Ray Evans -- the best and most famous of the group employed. The movie was even co-written and co-produced by Buddy DeSylva, a pretty fair country songwriter in his own right from the 1920s and 1930s. Out of that entire group, the best and only worthwhile song they were able to come up with was Hoagy and Paul Francis' "Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief." Although this song helped put Betty on the map and was quite popular in its day, when one thinks back to the memorable songs of that era, "D, L, I C" is not one that will pop readily into anyone's mind. And it stands out head and shoulders above all other songs in this movie!

One person who lost out by this movie's musical dearth was Andy Russell. Andy was one of the better crooners of the 1940s and, in my book, much underrated. He made his musical debut in this movie and that great roster of songwriters gave him NOTHING worthwhile to sing. It was the musical equivalent of, let's say, Lawrence Olivier making his movie debut with all of his dialogue being written by ..... ME!!!

So, any of you folks needing to shed a few pounds, you can't do better than to start with "The Stork Club." It's lightweight, low-calorie and, in 1¾ hours, will take two inches off that ole tum-tum. Guaranteed! If not, your money cheerfully refunded ..... in full!

Beat the Devil (1953)

An imaginary conversation ..........

[5/10 · 27 October 2001]

An imaginary conversation between John Huston and Humphrey Bogart..........

Huston and Bogart are enjoying a warm summer cruise, replete with cigars and brandies, just off Catalina on Bogart's boat -- Santana. Huston speaks.

Huston: "I've got a great idea for a new movie, Bogie."

Bogart: "Let's hear it, John."

Huston: "I'm going to remake all of our movies together -- 'Casablanca,' 'Across the Pacific,' 'Key Largo,' 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre,' 'The African Queen' -- into one movie! What do you think?"

Bogart: "Sounds interesting. Go on."

Huston: "Then I'm going to add elements from some of your other movies -- 'The Maltese Falcon,' 'To Have and Have Not,' 'The Big Sleep,' 'Passage to Marseilles,' 'Dark Passage,' 'The Night of the Iguana,' 'Prizzi's Honor'....."

Bogart: "'The Night of the Iguana?!' 'Prizzi's Honor?!' What movies of mine are those?"

Huston: "Oops! Sorry. I forgot. I haven't made those movies yet."

Bogart: "That's OK, John. Here, have another brandy. Go on."

Huston: "Well, you see, Bogie, the idea is to take all of the best elements from all these movies and combine them into one all-time blockbuster Humphrey Bogart movie."

Bogart: "You're beginning to get my attention. Keep going."

Huston: "Casting. For your wife, I've got in mind this beautiful, young Italian actress -- Gina Lollosomethingorother. She even speaks English! And the public won't mind that she's more than 30 years younger than you. They never do. And for your OTHER love interest, how does Jennifer Jones sound to you?"

Bogart: "Hey! I get TWO beautiful love interests in ONE movie. WOW! Now you're REALLY talking my language, John-Boy. Refill?"

Huston: "Thanks, Bogie. I know I can get Lorre for it and Morley's available, too. They're two of the main supporting characters."

Bogart: "This is just sounding better and better all the time. How soon can I read the script?"

Huston: "Just as soon as we write it."

Bogart: "Who's 'we'?"

Huston: "I've hooked up with this unknown young writer to write it. Name's Capote."

Bogart: "Kaput?"

Huston: "No, no. It's pronounced 'ca-PO-te.' I guess he's Italian. He's from New Orleans or someplace like that. First name's Truman."

Bogart: "They named him after the president?! How old is he -- six?"

Huston: "No, no, no, Bogie. Truman isn't the only Truman named Truman. I mean, president. I mean, person. Oh, Bogie, you're getting me all mixed up."

Bogart: "OK, OK -- relax, John. If this 'Kaput' guy is good enough for you, he's good enough for me." By the way, what are we calling this stupendonova, anyway?"

Huston: "Dead Heat with the Devil."

Bogart: "I think I'd much prefer to beat the devil."

Huston: "Good idea! We'll change it to 'Beat the Devil.'"

Bogart: "Well, John, the sun's going down. We'd better head for home. One more cigar and brandy for the trip back?"

Huston: "Sure, Bogie. Let's celebrate. We're going to make the best Bogart movie that has EVER been made."

Bogart: "You said it, John. This baby absolutely cannot miss."

Oh ..... yes ..... it most certainly can!

The Perfect Storm (2000)

What would happen if .....

[7/10 · 24 October 2001]

What would happen if Hurricane Grace moving north from Bermuda and a low-pressure front building just south of Sable Island and this cold front coming in from Canada on the jet stream were to all meet at the same confluence? How should I know? What do I look like -- some kind of meteorologist? Well, one meteorologist working at a TV station in Boston says that if it happens, it's going to be ..... "The Perfect Storm."

Billy Tyne (George Clooney) and Linda Greenlaw (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) are rival -- friendly rival -- sword-boat captains out of Gloucester, Mass. They even wear "rival" baseball caps -- she wears a CAT hat (Caterpillar) while he wears a John Deere. But secretly inside, you strongly suspect they've both got a "thing" for each other. Linda has been on a hot streak lately when it comes to bringing in the swordfish. Billy, on the other hand, has been ice-cold -- as in, few fish on ice. So much so, in fact, that he decides on a quick two-day turnaround and back out to sea for another shot at the big payday. It is while he and his crew are out to sea on the quick turnaround trip that this so-called "storm of the century" comes a-brewin'. And that means Trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with B and that stands for Boat -- the Andrea Gail -- which Billy skippers.

"The Perfect Storm," as I understand it, is a true story that took place in October 1991. Why does everything happen in October? The "storm of the century." Halloween. Columbus discovers the New World. The Gunfight at the OK Corral. Oh. That's only four things. Maybe October isn't so bad after all. Unless ..... you're a crewman on the Andrea Gail ..... or on the chopper come to rescue them.

Before writing this review, I read a limited number (about 20) of the IMDb User Comments on this movie (there may be over 600 by now). To my astonishment, most of the User Comments on this movie are quite negative. Some were extremely negative. Leonard Maltin, on the other hand, gives the movie 2½ stars, which I think is just about right-on. Unlike the title of the movie, the movie itself is not perfect. The movie's main attraction, of course, is its scenes of storm-tossed seas and the effect of same upon those caught thereon. Even I have to admit that watching people getting tossed into the drink and countless shots of the Andrea Gail getting battered and bashed got to be a bit much after awhile. Still, director Wolfgang Petersen gets kudoes for the realism he brought to the many scenes of stormy seas.

But most Users/Complainers cite lack of character development as perhaps the movie's biggest failing. Frankly, I don't get it. If you want to say BAD character development, that might be one thing. But LACK of character development?! I don't think so. This movie has PLENTY of character development of the movie's main characters, especially for this kind of movie, when almost everything and everyone take a back seat to the special effects. Do you know what I think? Methinks the MALE Users who are throwing brickbats at this movie are simply green-eyed of the two stars, George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg, both of whom are VERY popular with the women of America.

If one can put out of one's mind that this is a true story and what that implies, "The Perfect Storm" is a reasonably entertaining way to pass a couple of hours. And if you don't know the ending in advance -- and I didn't -- that makes for an even more compelling reason to watch it. As far as I'm concerned, the ending gave the movie its reason for being.

The Big Country (1958)

They don't make 'em like that anymore.

[9/10 · 20 October 2001]

And it's true. They don't. Just as the classic musical is no more, so, too, can the same be said for the sprawling western. Yes, "The Big Country" was not the last of the great sprawling westerns. It is merely representative of a type of movie no longer made by Hollywood. It is not just Hollywood's loss but everyone's loss.

On the surface, the story is not unique. A couple of families fighting over water rights in the Old West, with a love story thrown in for added interest. But put it in the hands of a masterful director such as William Wyler and a movie such as "The Big Country" becomes something special. Suddenly, all the characters become bigger than life. The scenes are much bigger than they appear on the screen. The meanings, the dialogue, the twists and turns in the plot, all take on much more meaning than in any ordinary movie. Most important of all, the distinguishing lines between good and evil become blurred, to the point where you're not sure for whom to root and to root against.

In "The Big Country," the only thing about which you can be reasonably certain is that James McKay (Gregory Peck) is probably the good guy. Probably. But after him, everyone else is up for grabs. Of the two familial patriarchs, Major Henry Terrill (Charles Bickford) and Rufus Hannassey (Burl Ives), you kind of figure that one of them will change coats and become a good guy in the end. But which one? And how? Then there's Steve Leech (Charlton Heston), Major Terrill's right-hand man. In the world of good/bad guys, he's about ten commandments removed from Moses. But is HE as bad as he seems? Maybe Buck Hannassey (Chuck Conners), Rufus' son, can fulfill the role of the profligate bad boy.

Then there are the women. First, there is Patricia Terrill (Carroll "Baby Doll" Baker), Henry's daughter. The goodly Jim McKay has given up life as a seafaring captain to come west to marry her so she MUST be good. Mustn't she? And what about Julie Maragon (Jean Simmons), owner of Big Muddy, the ranch with the water that is causing all of the disagreeableness between the two feuding families? What role is she going to play in the denouement?

This story is played out against a backdrop of spectacular cinematography and is further augmented by the unforgettable score of Jerome Moross. In fact, "The Big Country" theme song was one of the most recognizable songs of the late 1950s and for anyone today who is old enough and still alive enough to recall the music of that era, it remains one of the most recognizable movie theme songs of that or any other era.

I guess what most impresses me about a movie like "The Big Country" is how William Wyler is able to tell such a simple story in such a complex way. Yes, it has great scenery and great music and great actors. But in the end, it's Wyler's storytelling that makes the movie.

Yep, when it comes to westerns, they don't make 'em like "The Big Country" anymore. But I sure wish they did.

The Day of the Triffids (1963)

If it's not one thing, it's another!

[5/10 · 13 October 2001]

If it's not one thing, it's another! First, a once-in-a-lifetime meteor shower blinds practically everyone on Earth. Then, a rampaging gang of "Celery Stalks at Midnight" decide to turn people into munchies, rather than the other way around, the way it's supposed to be. The next thing you know, somebody like Howard Keel is going to stop making classic musicals and decide that he'd rather star in some budget-minded sci-fi/horror movie. Yeah, sure. Like that's going to happen!

"The Day of the Triffids," I am told, is based on a classic sci-fi novel by one John Wyndham. I wouldn't know. I am illiterate, you see (unless you're one of the characters in this movie who looked at the aforementioned meteor shower), and I am not, therefore, handicapped by any knowledge as to how superior the novel may be to the movie. In other words, I like to operate on the lowest level possible.

So, what do we know? Well, according to the various police reports which were read to me, after the meteor shower, these funny celery stalks called Triffids started growing. And just what, pray tell, is a "Triffid"? Think Venus Flytrap with an attitude. And whence came these Triffids? Contrary to the song, they most certainly did NOT arrive on the wings of a snow-white dove. In fact, it was those same big bad meteors who delivered the Triffid spores to the third rock. A most unfriendly gesture!

This movie contains a varied assortment of mostly competent actors and actresses as supplied by central casting. The special effects? Let's just say that they predate George Lucas and Industrial Light and Magic and let it go at that. The script? As I said, I'm illiterate so I'm not sure if this movie even had one. The direction? Yes, it had a director. Reportedly, he enjoyed pointing in all different directions ..... all at the same time!

But here's what I don't understand. This movie was made in 1962, at which time almost everyone in the world was blinded by the meteor shower. That being the case, how is it that everyone who was blinded by that meteor shower and who is still alive today, in 2001, is suddenly able to see once again? Myself included?! Is it a miracle? Were we but temporarily blinded? Was it just mass hysteria and we weren't really blind at all? You see, folks, this is what happens when writers and directors choose to ignore the finer niceties of those things called plot points. We're blind in 1962 and we can see again in 2001 -- and nobody knows why!

I'm a-tellin' y'all ..... if it's not one thing, it's another. There's always SOMETHING just waiting to annoy you. If it's not blinding meteors, then it's a bunch of celery stalks walking around at midnight who refuse to know and keep their place in a well-ordered society. And one last thing. Does anybody know when the next Howard Keel musical is due to be released?

Forrest Gump (1994)

Forrest has "gumption"!

[10/10 · 29 September 2001]

Gumption: noun; common sense, horse sense, initiative, enterprise (Merriam-Webster). Chop off the back half of that word and you have Forrest Gump, a towering fountain of stand-alone common sense in a nonsensical world gone crazy.

In a recent letter, a friend told me that she had just watched "Forrest Gump" and that she "loved that movie." Although it had been some seven years since I had seen it, her comment to me reminded me that I, too, had once "loved that movie." When it suddenly showed up on TV last night, I felt the urge, the need, for a refresher course on what it is like to be a Forrest Gump in a world of schlumps, myself included. Moreover, I needed the sanity and serenity of Forrest Gump the man to assuage the insanity and unserenity that has been the month of September of 2001. I have been assuaged.

By now, almost anyone who watches movies has seen "Forrest Gump." At least once. Thus, we all know that it cannot be classified as a comedy. Nor as a drama. Nor an adventure. Nor a charmer. Nor a tearjerker. And yet, it is all of those things, all in one movie. "Forrest Gump," when and as you are watching it, reminds you constantly that there IS good in the world. Even as you are watching bad events transpire in the movie, you seem to know that somehow, good will eventually result. That is because Forrest Gump is nearby -- around -- somewhere -- and wherever Forrest goes, goodness follows.

My favorite movie actor is, was and always will be Jimmy Stewart. With Jimmy gone and no longer with us, Tom Hanks has taken his place. In my heart. Just as Jimmy was in so very many of his famous and fabulous roles, Tom has become the American Everyman. He's the guy for whom you always root. You want him to triumph. You want him to get the girl. He HAS to get the girl! Even if the worth of the girl to be gotten is open to question, you STILL want him to get her, if only because he has always loved her and will always love her so unfailingly and so unconditionally. And when, at last, his unrequited love for his beloved Jenny (Robin Wright) is finally so deservedly rewarded, you feel as if you want to jump up and shout ... "HALLELUJAH!!!" Then, when Jenny tenderly tells Forrest that he is the father of her sweet little Forrest Jr., you think to yourself and you say to yourself, "Yes, Self! That is right! That is as it should be!"

And that is right and that is as it should be about this entire movie. Even Lt. Dan (Gary Sinise), Forrest's self-loathing and loathable army buddy, is unable to avoid Forrest's goodness wearing off on him. Forrest "touches" everyone. And he doesn't even know it! He's just a guy living his life. He just ... is ... Forrest Gump, a guy with gumption in a gumptionless world.

I am so very glad and happy that my friend told me she saw "Forrest Gump" and that she "loved that movie." She spurred me to watch it once again. Having now done so, I feel that Forrest has restored both peace and love to my troubled mind and heart over the awful events of September of 2001. He is a reminder to us all that no matter how many Hitlers, Stalins and bin Ladens may rise and fall, we will always have a Forrest Gump to help pull us thru the evils that these evil men do. Peace and love to you, Forrest.

Westworld (1973)

Nothing can go wrong!

[8/10 · 18 September 2001]

Ever been on a bad trip? I mean, a bad vacation? You have? If so, you may have been vacationing at one of DELOS' three fantasylands: Roman World, Medieval World or Westworld. Where nothing can go wrong. Nothing! It says so in the advertising and hostesses escorting the visiting guests repeat the same mantra. And for $1,000. a day (in 1973 bucks), things had BETTER NOT go wrong!

In the three above-mentioned "amusement parks," the only way to tell the robots from the real people is by a tell-tale chip on the palms of the hands of the former. And the only other difference is that all the actions of the robots are controlled by computer in DELOS Central. Otherwise, the robots are there to serve the visitors: to fulfill their every fantasy and to see that all their pleasures are ... uh ... pleasured.

Enter our two heroes: Richard Benjamin and James Brolin. They've chosen Westworld for their kingdom of fantasy and pleasure, as has Dick Van Patten ("Eight is Enough"). At first, things go splendidly. They keep knocking off the town-too-tough-to-die's robot gunslinger, who looks suspiciously like Yul Brynner. Then, one of the DELOS technicians accidentally spills a glass of chocolate milk into a mainframe computer -- or something bad happens -- and things start to go wrong. Dick Van Patten quickly finds out that in Westworld, eight was much more than enough. And poor Jimmy Brolin. He gets blown clean out of Westworld, all the way into the arms of Barbra Streisand. Which leaves just Richard Benjamin. From that point on, it's between him and -- I could SWEAR that's Yul Brynner! -- and may the best man -- or robot -- win. At the denouement, it's easy to understand why Richard Benjamin made a major career switch from acting to mostly directing after completing "Westworld." Being in a movie like "Westworld" is too scary for ANY actor!

Although it was early in his career at the time, "Westworld" is the type of story that screenwriter Michael Crichton ("The Andromeda Strain" and "Jurassic Park") has become known for. And, in this case, he also directed, taking a cue from his father Charles.

I've seen "Westworld" many times and never tire of seeing it anew. I love to watch the visitors to the three fantasy worlds of DELOS. But ONLY to watch them! I don't want to actually go there. But if YOU decide that YOU want to go there, please be sure all of your insurance is paid up in full. They say... "nothing can go wrong" ... but ..........

The Dark Corner (1946)

Framed! And it's NOT for a new house!

[8/10 · 17 September 2001]

Sometimes it seems like it's impossible to avoid being framed for murder. I think we've all had that experience, haven't we? That certainly is Bradford Galt's (Mark Stevens) problem in "The Dark Corner." I should say, it is ONE of his problems. That, along with being constantly annoyed by the cops and assorted bad guys. It's just one of the hazards that come with being a private eye. If you don't believe that, just ask Humphrey Bogart. Among others!

But there can be benefits, too. And in this case, one of the benefits is having the beautiful Kathleen (Lucille Ball) for your ... uh ... private secretary. Furthermore, it can be doubly beneficial when you and your "private secretary" become romantically involved. This role -- Kathleen -- is, I think, one of Lucy's very best from her lengthy pre-"I Love Lucy" movie career. She's beautiful (oh, I said that), she's charming, she's bright (quite un-Lucylike) and, perhaps most important for a private snoop, she helps her man Brad extricate himself from more than one tight spot. And, she's beautiful!

As for those aforementioned annoying bad guys, we have William Bendix and Clifton Webb on hand to annoy His Snoopness. The former THINKS he's a lot tougher than he really is. Better had he known that a tough guy gets much further being the other way around. As for the latter, he, apparently, didn't learn his lesson in "Laura" two years earlier. Too bad. For him.

One of the mildly amusing aspects to this film is Brad's use, perhaps as many as half a dozen times, of the word "shagged." Thanks to "Austin Powers," we now have a new 21st century meaning for that word. But in 1946, in THIS movie, it meant something completely different. And neither meaning has anything to do with rugs. Ahhh, language.

I also find it interesting that the star of this movie (Mark Stevens) took fourth billing. True, although he was both a known and a competent actor, he was never a star of the magnitude of, say, the aforementioned H.B. Which makes me wonder if Henry Hathaway (the director) and Fred Kohlmar (the producer) had a big-name star in mind for the main role but were unable to land same. Thus, did they have to "settle for" Stevens? It would be interesting to learn the background of the casting of this movie and how Stevens came to get the main role and why he was given just fourth billing.

Even so, "The Dark Corner," WITH Mark Stevens, is still one of the better film noirs of the 1940s. And watch out the next time somebody tries to frame you for murder. Maybe it won't be a movie!

Drop Dead Gorgeous (1999)

Be afraid! Be VERY afraid!

[10/10 · 4 September 2001]

Afraid of what? Afraid that there are real people just like the characters portrayed in this movie. And you KNOW that there are!

DDG is a complete sendup of beauty pageants. Another "Miss Congeniality" or "Smile" it is NOT! It assails the institution of beauty pageants and after this movie has its way with that institution, one can never again watch any beauty pageant at all without a non-jaundiced eye rooted in DDG.

In DDG, the pageant in question is the fictional Miss Teen Princess America and most of the movie revolves around the local qualifier in the made-up town of Mount Rose, Minnesota. Mount Rose: that's also the home (as proclaimed on a billboard entering town) of Freda Hegstrom, Minnesota's oldest living Lutheran. Except that, as we quickly find out, poor Freda has been dead for years. And it's all downhill from there!

If one takes the time to read all 192 (or so) of IMDb's "User Comments" on this movie, as I have, one quickly finds that the one thing upon which we can all agree about DDG is that none of us can agree on DDG. You either love it or you hate it with hardly anyone in between on it. The same goes for all the major critics. Why is this? Why do so many people see this movie in so many different lights and from so many different points of view?

My answer, which is certainly open to challenge, is that DDG takes no prisoners. None at all. It is an equal opportunity insulter of all things human, no matter how cherished or deeply felt some of those things might happen to be (to some or to many people). DDG's roster of insultees: Minnesotans, Japanese, Christians (generally), Lutherans (specifically), Jews, gun lovers, the overweight, the mentally challenged, Mexicans, anorectics, the rich, trailer trash, alcoholics, African-Americans, male-voyeurs-of-nubile-young-females, hospital candy stripers, beauty pageant contestants (AND the judges AND the pageant organizers AND the contestants' families, ESPECIALLY their moms).....and on and on. And those are just the categories of insultees in this movie that I can remember! If any category of insultable humanity has been omitted from this movie, it is only because there is just so much one can squeeze into any one movie. Is it any wonder that so many people hate this movie?

But I'm not one of them. I LOVE this movie! And I say that as a member of more than one of the aforementioned categories of insultees. I consider Lona Williams' screenplay to be brilliant. Ms. Williams does not spare even herself. Not only is she a former beauty pageant contestant, she also has a prominent role in the movie, appearing in many scenes, as one of the pageant's judges. Yet, knowing her own acting ability (apparently), she has given herself not one word of dialogue! And Michael Patrick Jann was the perfect choice for a director to put every word of her ingenious script on the screen in countless subtly-nuanced scenes exactly as Ms. Williams intended them.

Just HOW divided are people on DDG? My best friend in the world is a woman who lives in California. She has not seen this movie. But if she WERE to see it, she would hate every minute of it from beginning to end. This is a movie which, once you've seen it, you can't help but have a one-sided opinion of it. And my-sided opinion of it is....."10."

Sweet Angel Mine (1996)

A sweet title for a not-so-sweet movie.

[3/10 · 5 August 2001]

How do I love this movie? Let me count the ways. OK. I'm done counting. I can count the ways I love this movie on fewer than the fingers of one hand. In fact, I wouldn't even need one finger. Not unless I was using my middle finger.

This is the type of movie where you root for the young lover-wannabes to NOT get together at the end. This is the type of movie where you root for the entire cast of characters to die in the end. And speaking of root, this is the type of movie that gives undergoing a root canal a good name. That's what I wish I'd been doing instead of watching this movie---undergoing a root canal.

One really has to wonder how this film got by the Canadian Board of Tourism. Not to mention the Province of Nova Scotia's Chamber of Commerce. That's where it takes place. ("Come visit beautiful Nova Scotia. You, too, can act like an idiot!") The plot? Why bother? When every character in a movie can't get a clue, ESPECIALLY the two young lovers, then any alleged plot becomes meaningless. The best ending for this movie would have been for all of its characters, in one mass group-in, to have thrown themselves into the Atlantic Ocean from atop the rocky Nova Scotian cliffs. And to have taken the director (Curtis Radclyffe) with them! That, finally, would have been the first thing about this movie to make any sense.

"Sweet Angel Mine." Never judge a movie by its title. I did. And because I did, I wasted nearly two hours of my lifetime. That's two lost hours that can never be reclaimed. A root canal, at least, when it's all over, turns out to have been worthwhile time well spent.

Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975)

This picnic tastes great but is unfulfilling.

[7/10 · 26 July 2001]

Confession: I don't know WHAT I think of this movie! Not only that, I had to go to IMDb's user comments to find a person or persons to TELL ME what I think of this movie. None did. I read all 45 of the user comments (reviews) and I STILL don't know what I think of this movie. That's how enigmatic this movie is. To me, anyway.

I did learn one thing, however, from reading these 45 preceding user reviews. A very great many of these user-reviewers are some of the keenest and most astute moviegoers whom I've ever encountered. They know things about this movie and have picked up things from it which are completely over my non-perceptive head.

Example: One user-reviewer, an English gentleman, I believe, obviously did his doctoral thesis on this movie. He knows things about it that even Peter Weir (the director) doesn't know. A number of others did their masters on it. Many of the latter refer to Miranda (Anne-Louise Lambert), one of the girls who disappeared, in terms of her being a sort of virginal Botticelli-like angel. While I do agree that Miranda is a most ethereal character, whenever she would appear in a scene, "Botticelli" was not the first word to jump into my mind. But that's just me.

Much is made by many of these perceptive and sharp user-reviewers of the girls' awakening feelings of sexuality and of the phallic symbolism of Hanging Rock to the girl climbers. Oh. I was just wondering: Where'd the girls go? What happened to them?

One of the many puzzling aspects to the story of this movie, one on which no one seems to agree, is.....is it true? At first I thought it was. Then I thought it wasn't. Now, I have no idea! And the user-reviewers are of no help on this, politely at odds amongst themselves on the story's veracity. I'd like to believe that the movie and novel which preceded it are based on a true incident. No, not because I would wish anything bad to have happened to these adventurous, yet innocent, young girls some 101 years ago. I wish it were true only because it would be but one more "event" to add to the great mystery that we know as life. A mystery, a question, to which no one has the answer.

Listen to me! I sound like I know what I'm talking about. Which I don't! Especially about this movie. In the final analysis, this movie left me generally unfulfilled. There is much in it that is worthy of praise, first and foremost the moviemaking skills of Peter Weir. But when credits rolled, something was missing. I felt as if I'd just eaten a delicious Thanksgiving dinner, having enjoyed every single bite, then, upon arising from the table, felt my stomach completely empty. A feeling stranger than strange.

Anyone viewing this film for the first time must be prepared for a movie in which all the various and loose plot ends do NOT get all tied up by the film's denouement. If one is so prepared, one may come away from it more fulfilled than was I. "Tastes great," unfortunately, was as far as I could get with it.

One sad note: At the movie's conclusion, Mrs. Appleyard (Rachel Roberts) arrived at a fate not much unlike one arrived at by Ms. Roberts herself just five short years after the movie's release. Just as art often imitates life, so, too, in this case, did life imitate art.

A Night at the Opera (1935)

Minnie's boys -- they're at it again!

[8/10 · 22 July 2001]

Minnie Marx, when she was alive, must have often wondered where she went wrong. She raised such nice boys. Such fine boys. What craziness is it to make them do the things they do. I don't know but we're all much happier and eternally grateful for said "craziness."

In "A Night at the Opera," their first movie for MGM after five earlier ones for Paramount, the boys are in their usual top form.

The plot? Well, O.K. If you insist. Two talented but unknown singers are in Europe and wanting to make their way to New York and "The Big Time." And who else to help them get there to realize their dream(s) but.....The Marx Brothers? That's it. The plot.

Although the screenwriter was the renowned and legendary George S. Kaufman, everyone knows that a script to The Marx Brothers is just an idea, a jumping off point. Especially for Groucho. The boys NEVER let the script get in the way when there's a good joke to be had at somebody's expense. Including themselves!

Beyond the Marxes, two additional treats in this Social Security-aged movie are seeing and listening to the wonderful singing of both Allan Jones (Jack's dad) and Kitty Carlisle, she of the 1960s TV game show "To Tell the Truth" (among others). Remember? I did, however, miss Margaret Dumont in this movie. She was Groucho's much put-upon foil in their five Paramount movies. Groucho without Margaret available to be insulted to a fare-thee-well? Unthinkable! But there you are.

Harpo, just as in their earlier movies, continues to give insanity a bad name (while still playing such beautiful music on the harp), while Chico plays that piano in his purely inimitable fashion, all the while saying perfectly normal things which make no sense at all in his hopeless Italian dialect. What a gang! No wonder Minnie wondered where she went wrong. What mother wouldn't with sons like these?

This movie, by the way, contains a very important Public Service Announcement (PSA) which is still just as valid in 2001 as it was in 1935. Wishing to be helpful, I am passing it along. Here it is: If ever you have a contract to sign, make sure you first check it to be sure it has....."A Sanity Clause." You're welcome.

Gold Diggers of 1935 (1935)

Busby Berkeley phones one in -- from long distance! Collect!

[5/10 · 22 July 2001]

"Gold Diggers of 1935" is a classic example of the type of movie musical which results when a screenwriter, director, choreographer and the movie's songwriters all decide, collectively, to "phone one in." It's O.K. to spend one's time watching it, but only if Bowser has already had his evening's walk. A far more important enterprise.

It's typical movie musical fare, vintage 1930s. Let's put on a show; in this case, for charity. And while we're doing that, will the boy (Dick Powell) get the girl? And which girl? Gloria Stuart? Glenda Farrell? Maybe even Winifred Shaw? Who knows? Who cares? Personally, I have no problem at all with this constant recycling of the same plot in 1930s movie musicals, as long as it's done well and is fresh in each new version. Which in this case, it is neither.

Starting with the script and plot, both are weak and made weaker still by inane dialogue. It's as if they started out wanting to make a Marx Brothers movie but forgot to include the bad boys themselves. The music? Harry Warren and Al Dubin did SO MUCH BETTER in their contributions to other musicals of the 1930s, 1940s and, in Warren's case, into the 1950s. In this case, however, they did manage one classic: "Lullaby of Broadway." Also included is a little known and long since forgotten Warren-Dubin ditty, the cute and very catchy "I'm Goin' Shoppin' With You." The rest of the music is eminently forgettable.

And then there's "Mr. Double B" himself, Busby Berkeley. The director-chorographer. If only he'd jettisoned the plot completely and put all of his time and effort into more big production numbers similar to what he put into "Lullaby of Broadway." THEN he might have had something. But he didn't. Instead, he chose to try to capitalize cheaply (perhaps Warner Brothers forced him into it with a severely restricted budget) on the two classic monster musicals from 1933, "Gold Diggers of 1933" and "42nd Street." To my untrained eye, even the tap dancing in the big production number, by some 100 men and women, looks ragged. All of which makes it no less of a treat to watch the dancers go thru their paces, trying to keep in step.

Other than two good songs and one watchable big production number, "Gold Diggers of 1933" does offer one other treat worth seeing: Gloria Stuart. A very young Gloria Stuart. Yes, THE Gloria Stuart, the elderly "blue diamond lady" in "Titanic," James Cameron's blockbuster smash of 1997-98. What a joy seeing this lovely woman at BOTH the beginning and ending of her acting career.....more than 60 years apart!

Bowser had his walk? Then go ahead and answer the phone. It's just Busby Berkeley calling, phoning one in to you. And yes, tell the operator you'll accept the charges.

Love Serenade (1996)

Aussie love story in Super Slo-Mo

[9/10 · 20 July 2001]

For those of us who are not MTV Generationers, the people who live for bang-bang, shoot-'em-up and blow-'em-up three-second cuts in every movie they see, little gifts are occasionally given. Such as "Love Serenade."

"Love Serenade" is a calm, quiet mini-masterpiece in Super Slo-Mo from Down Under by Shirley Barrett, in her first-ever attempt at a full-length theatrical movie. As writer-director, she has crafted a film that is best appreciated by true aficionados of the art form.

The story, in miniature. Ken Sherry is a shopworn, middle-aged Aussie DJ in Brisbane. Having tired of the big city and just coming off his third divorce, he heads for south Australia and the sleepy little burg of Sunray, there to begin life anew. Unwittingly, he moves in next door to the two love-starved Hurley sisters, neither of whom, unfortunately for Ken, is named Elizabeth. Most of the story has to do with the two sisters battling for the attention and affection of the new arrival, plus his reaction to said battle and how he takes advantage of their duo-longing for him.

The actor/actresses portraying the film's three main protagonists are uniformly outstanding in their roles. As Ken, George Shevtsov is so laid back, you wonder how he manages to stay awake. Even during sex! As the prototypical male lothario, he is able to stay plenty enough awake, however, to take full advantage of the two sisters'.....ahem....."favors." Vicki-Ann (Rebecca Frith) makes no secret of her desire to land this man at all costs. The town of Sunray, obviously, must REALLY be hurting for available decent men to evoke such desperation in a woman.

But it is Miranda Otto as the younger sister who almost steals the movie from her two co-stars. As the apropos-named Dimity ("Dimwitty" would have been even better), she operates on low-wattage brainpower and just can't get a clue about the game of love. However, it is she who, in a one-time display of intelligentsia, provides the movie's near-shocking twist and climax.

The movie and story are much enhanced by a soundtrack comprised, in great part, by Barry White love songs from the 1970s, as well as some other songs of that like from the same era. This "love soundtrack" adds just the right theme to the two sisters looking for love in all the wrong places (translation: Ken's house).

For anyone interested in an Aussie take on how three different characters might attempt to play the game of love in Super Slo-Mo, this quirky black comedy is for you. All others, stay away. Your next knuckle-bruiser awaits.

Life Is Beautiful (1997)

Humor, deception and pathos in one neat package.

[9/10 · 4 July 2001]

Add Roberto Benigni's name to the list of cinema triple threats: those who can write, direct and act -- all in one movie! And do it well, too!

In "La Vita è bella" (USA: "Life Is Beautiful"), he has made a classic. Initially, Guido (Benigni), an Italian Jew, is a happy-go-lucky fellow whose silly antics are constantly rubbing those who know him the wrong way. Then he meets Dora (Nicoletta Braschi, Benigni's real-life wife) and while Guido's happy demeanor never lets down, he's now becoming more of a man of responsibility. Eventually, Guido and Dora have a son, Giosué (Giorgio Cantarini), and it is now that Guido's blue-sky philosophy of life is severely tested by the World War II clouds that have enveloped all of Europe.

The crux of this movie is how possibly can Guido, the happiest Italian Jew, help his family survive the Nazis and The Holocaust? It's a daunting proposition, at best, and we don't know 'til the end of the movie how -- or even if -- he's going to manage to pull it off.

Benigni, here, has taken a most original story idea, mixed in equal parts of humor and tragedy, added a strong dose of deception (perhaps the movie's most important plot element), thus producing a work of art that is seldom equalled on the screen. And in this case, when we talk of humor and the Nazis in the same context, we're not talking "Hogan's Heroes," folks!

Without telling you how Benigni did it, there is one scene in this movie when Giosué, the son, puts in his first appearance as a five-year-old. The scene is done in a matter of seconds and it is done flawlessly, seamlessly and with a type of artistry that is rarely seen in motion pictures.

And that's what "La Vita è bella" is, too: the artistry of motion picture-making at its very best. A heart-wrencher and a cheerer-upper, all rolled into one.