Change Your Image
movielover1913
Reviews
The Rockford Files: Lions, Tigers, Monkeys and Dogs (1979)
One of the most intriguing Rockford Files episodes
The Rockford Files was exceptional television. I studied Mass Media Studies when I was in college, and this was one of the TV shows we discussed. It stood out because it took a well-known genre and then subverted it in clever, touching and insightful ways.
The hard-boiled detective is a well-known stock character but, as played here by James Garner, he is a very human individual, more known for his vulnerability than his being hard-boiled. He has a loving relationship with his father, he has money problems, he is not necessarily always confident or has all the answers, & he often displays gentleness. His relationships with women tend to be complex, respectful and affectionate. His approach to life resembles what you and I probably evince -- a degree of bewilderment, frustration, surprise, etc. This is a very human character.
This particular episode always stood out for me because, as a two-parter where Garner plays opposite the great Lauren Bacall, he has more of a chance to really develop his character within the arc of a specific story. This episode also stood out for me because of the interesting motivation behind the attempted killing.
The plot, in a nutshell, is that a princess hires Rockford to find out who's trying to kill her best friend. The princess and the best friend are both from lower middle class America who "did good." Dana Wynter married a European prince, and Lauren Bacall became something of a high society hostess/socialite, albeit one who's had financial ups & downs. The two women are extremely close, but very different. Dana left her middle class background behind her to become completely immersed in being royalty; Lauren never lost sight of who she was and has no problem reconciling this with the person she's since become.
The princess has a love/hate complex for her friend; they're sisters in terms of their emotional bond, but the princess cannot forgive Lauren for never letting her forget where she came from. Dana Wynter plays this "madness" beautifully because that, in fact, is what it is. So she hires somebody to assassinate Lauren Bacall. As a motivation for murder, this is unusual and, admittedly, fragile but no less fascinating for all that. As a matter of fact, it's a very realistic motive for murder (just read some crime cases and you'll see the extent to which people commit murder for subtle, psychological reasons).
There are some who don't like this episode, saying it drags on too long (it's a 2 parter) and that the motivation is weak, but I disagree. The acting is great -- Garner, Bacall & Wynter all hail from the Golden Era of Hollywood and they're a class act. Saw this when it first aired on TV well over 30 years ago, and it's stayed with me ever since!
Tales of the Unexpected: Neck (1979)
An interesting addition to the series
It's been a very long time since I saw "Tales of the Unexpected." I used to watch it when it first came on TV in the U.S. back in the late 1970s-early 1980s but I was always struck by the cruel and ironic twists of fate that befell the characters.
In this episode, I liked Roald Dahl's opening discussion about how "black comedy" is ultimately uncomfortable as he points out that those things which are tragic are usually not funny, but black comedy is. Then he asks why, and leaves it to us to try to figure it out. The fact is that, although we laugh, we are simultaneously uncomfortable because it is black comedy which, at worst, means something tragic or at least mortifying has happened. Usually, such things are not funny.
In this episode Joan Collins plays an arrogant, unpleasant woman married to a rich, titled art collector. She's so bossy that she runs his family business whereas he suffers in silence while the servants roll their eyes behind her back. She also carries on numerous affairs under her husband's nose.
One weekend her husband invites an art historian to his wife's house party who turns out to be young and handsome, not old and staid (like her husband). In the course of being her usual unpleasant, temperamental self she attempts to seduce the young man -- who doesn't discourage her but also doesn't push her away -- only to be foiled by the butler, her husband's most faithful, and ever watchful servant. The butler is apparently the lady's bete noir -- at least at first.
The next morning the lady is out enjoying the grounds with another one of her boyfriends, a British Army Major who, temperamentally at least, is more her type than the art historian. While making fun of the artwork in her husband's sculpture garden, she puts her head in the hole of one priceless work and gets stuck. Now, the servants, her husband and the other guests -- including the handsome art historian -- combine forces to try to pry her loose to no avail, even using lard to help "grease" her head out of the hole. Of course, in the midst of all this the lady's predicament makes her look absurd -- a fact not lost on either her or everybody else present. Even the art historian has to hide a smile or two.
At the end, the butler produces an axe from the suit of armor in the front hall of the mansion as well as a saw for the master of the house to choose from to free his wife's head. We see the husband choose the axe, we see the art historian's astonished face, we hear the wife's scream of fear, and then the end credits roll without our ever knowing if the baronet chopped off his wife's head or demolished his valuable sculpture in orderto free it.
Funny, but also troubling. But why? Obviously, it's not funny when somebody gets decapitated even if they are unpleasant. But assuming that didn't happen, which in all probability it didn't, why is it still unsettling? It's more the implied malice that is the final "twist of the knife" than anything else. One doesn't really believe that a British Baronet is going to chop his wife's head off, no matter how tempting the prospect. He's not a murderer and, besides, she's not worth going to jail for. But the enjoyment of the lady's predicament -- her comeuppance as the old saying goes -- is where the real twist of the knife comes into play.
At the end of the day one feels a little bit sorry for her. Ultimately, the presence of the handsome young art historian makes things worse. Here is someone whose opinion we think Lady Turton actually cares about. She was sexually attracted to him. He's handsome, cultured and worthy. So his opinion matters to her, and to us. Yet he, unwittingly, has become witness to her humiliation as she is taken down a peg or two.
What adds to the irony is that the art historian -- although clearly finding the lady attractive -- never actually encouraged her infidelity, so his conduct remains blameless whereas hers is dubious, at best. There is a sense that she gets what she deserves, and yet the punishment still feels harsh and a little mean. It doesn't help that her callous disregard for anything she doesn't care about led to her predicament; After all, nobody told her to stick her head in the hole of a sculpture. This makes her embarrassment all the more cruel because she honestly has nobody to blame but herself.
Like I said, it's a twist of the knife. :-)
Oldboy (2013)
I appreciate this movie
I have read a number of reviews of this film on IMDb. I respect the fact that everyone who takes the time to write something on IMDb does so because they have a point to make and they, usually, feel strongly about it.
I did not see the original "Oldboy" although I was aware that the Spike Lee film was a remake. I am glad that I did not see the original because I believe that facilitates my evaluation of this version and helps me to be more objective. Having said that, I tend to remain objective about a movie even if I've seen a previous version. I think it's important to try to see each film on its own terms in order to experience what that particular film has to say. If the movie fails, it should fail on its own terms, not on the basis of what was done in another movie. When we see one version of "Macbeth" we evaluate it the work on its own merits, not on the basis of a comparison of what a previous actor did in the role.
Comparisons are probably unavoidable, but I believe we should try very hard to not let them guide us too strongly in an evaluation of a work of art's merits or demerits.
I first saw this movie in a hotel in May, 2014. I ordered it and was so impressed with the movie that I ordered it again the next night. I subsequently saw the movie again on Netflix earlier this week, and I remain impressed.
The style of the movie, the emotional journey of the main character and his eventual acceptance of his own monstrosity and the justness of his "punishment" cuts deep. I believe that this film got something very, very right. Even the look, pace and "feel" of the film was seductive, sleek, and fast. I did not feel the ending was hokey, or a Hollywood happy ending; I felt the ending was sad but resolved, since the character found a level of peace in his acceptance of his crimes that was missing before. Joe Doucette was a trouble man, and his principal (if not his sole) means of expressing his angst was through violence to others, whether that violence was hazing schoolmates, ignoring his wife, neglecting his daughter, or using his fists to get answers.
Even when Doucette sabotages an important business deal at the beginning of the movie, it's clear that it's unintentional; this is simply who this man is. Yet his journey teaches him a humility and sensitivity that is clear to see. The wonderful irony is that, despite the lesson he learned, he also learned that sometimes you can't get a "do-over." Once again, other films may be better movies but I try to judge the movie I'm looking at while I'm looking at it, on its own terms. It doesn't have to be the best movie I've seen, it just has to best movie I'm looking at while I'm watching it.
This is just my attempt to evaluate the movie in a manner I think is as objective and useful as possible. Thanks.
Mr. Skeffington (1944)
Alternate perspective
I will not write another review of "Mr. Skeffington" since this has already been done, and well done too I might add, by other users. I won't go on about the fact that the film is extremely well done, and one of Bette Davis' best performances in a distinguished career.
I always find it fascinating, however, to think about the character who ends up getting his or her comeuppance and learning their lesson, as Mrs. Skeffington does, and ask "what if." Although I know that she receives a much needed lesson in values and priorities, so that by the end of the film she understands what is truly important, I always feel some measure of sympathy for the character.
Vain, unfaithful and perhaps calculating though she might be, she is not without pathos and depth -- even in the beginning -- since her actions are motivated by the love of another, however misplaced. In attempting to help her brother, misguided though some might think it, she shows a willingness to help someone and to make a considerable sacrifice out of sisterly devotion.
Ultimately, when she gets sick and loses her looks, it is ironically cruel that the last man she dated ends up marrying her daughter; this always felt a shade too mean for my taste, although I accept the action as part of the whole of a great classic movie. Nevertheless, I can't help feeling that there should have been more dialog about this since it strikes me as a potentially incestuous betrayal by the daughter to the mother.
Once again, I do not discount or disagree with the general view about the film and its characters, but Mrs, Skeffington always elicited more sympathy from me than is perhaps usual among the movie's fans, even if she may not deserve it.
Definitely worth watching!!!
Elysium (2013)
Goes Down Swinging
This movie is not a completely successful one on an artistic level. Imaginative, well-produced, gorgeous art direction, costumes, settings, but it fails on some key levels for me in terms of story. However, the real test of a good movie is the suspension of disbelief and the degree to which you are entertained. In this sense, the movie may ultimately fail but it goes down swinging.
Matt Damon's character never truly comes to life for me. He has been excellent in other action pieces, the Bourne Identity movies come to mind. But here he has almost nothing to play with. Flashbacks of his childhood with a young girl from the orphanage run throughout the movie to give us an emotional connection that just doesn't work. Still, Damon is nothing if not talented and he tries to deliver.
Arguably the brightest element of the movie is Jodie Foster, who plays a futuristic version of Christine Lagarde, only prettier and sexier, who holds the position of Defense Minister of Elysium. She gives a coolly elegant portrayal in her sumptuous, tight dress suits and cutting edge hairstyle. When she's not on screen the movie loses some of its spark.
An interesting note about future class distinctions; Earth is, of course, where all the poor people live; it is multi-cultural with an interesting mixture of Spanish speaking and English speaking population groups. Elysium is where the plutocracy lives. It, too, is multicultural in the sense that you have a diversity of colors, and both women and men in positions of influence, but it seems to be characterized by people who come from a French and English speaking background. In Elysium there are moments when people speak exclusively in French (with English subtitles), just like on Earth there are moments where people speak exclusively in Spanish (including Matt Damon's character). This is an interesting take on future class distinctions and it happens so frequently throughout the film that it is clearly intentional, and thought-provoking. It's as if the American East Coast elite and the British City of London financial power-players joined forces in a plutocratic melting pot with the Grande Ecole upper echelon officials and chief executives of the French Republic.
Worth seeing, but catch a matinée.
Christina (1974)
haunting movie
This review does not dismiss the opinions of others in relation to this movie. Let me just say that, for me, a worthwhile film is one that stays with you. I saw "Christina" years ago as a child and I always remembered it; the images, the atmosphere and the overall "look" of the movie. It is far from perfect, but it reflects a degree of cleverness that is missing from many another film. I speak to the actual plot machinations, which are adequately twisting enough to keep you guessing as to what is really happening.
Then there is the relationship between Simon Bryce, the out of work engineer, and Christina, which has more to do with his fantasy fulfillment than with reality, but which is touching nevertheless. So when we get to the tragic denouement, there is a genuine sense of loss.
Finally, as stated above, there is the overall look and atmosphere of the movie. Maybe it's a little dated, maybe there are cardboard, potboiler formulaic elements; but for me it works because they do create atmosphere. Barbara Parkins is noteworthy -- both in terms of her glamor and her handling of the role. And Peter Haskell is solid as Bryce, who falls for the femme fatale.
I've always found it interesting that a movie can be imperfect in many, many ways and still have "something". Maybe because movies operate on numerous levels and can create their own kind of magic -- something to do with wish fulfillment, perhaps.
Dead of Night: A Darkness at Blaisedon (1969)
Give it a chance
I know full well that the comments that have been provided by my fellow horror fans are quite accurate, but I think you should give this little piece a chance. As clichéd as it is -- and it is! -- it manages to evoke a certain atmosphere that makes it fun to watch, despite the technical issues and the predictable storyline.
For me, a movie is almost always more about image and atmosphere; the question I always ask is "does it stay with me?" There are good movies that I would never see again and there are bad movies that become guilty pleasures. Dan Curtis had something and it comes across in most of his material. This is a perfect example of a certain type of horror, the kind that we did grow up with and ultimately find funny rather than scary; but it remains atmospheric for all that.
Teen Wolf (2011)
bloodlines
I don't know if anyone has discussed it, but I find it interesting to speculate on the various bloodlines, or potential bloodlines, that must exist on the show. We know that the Hale Family are hereditary werewolves; the question for me would be how that happened? Most of the lore with which I'm familiar talks about either becoming a werewolf by surviving an attack from one or, more unusually, spontaneous development due to a reaction from wolfsbane -- presumably for those of us who are more genetically susceptible.
An additional cause, based on some of the old stories I've read, is via witchcraft; there's actually a traditional link between werewolves and witches and/or warlocks, who are capable of helping the wolf track his or her next victims and guiding them to safety. Usually, the witch or warlock in question is also the werewolf's lover. There's an excellent, and old, collection of short stories ranging from the 1970s to the French Renaissance (the compilation was published back in the late 1970s) called "A Chrestomathy of Lycanthropy" where a lot of rich, interesting material is available.
So, we have the Hale Family -- hereditary werewolves; we have Jackson, who appears to be blood-linked to the Hales by Derek having scratched him. Then we have Scott, whose maker has not been unveiled, but who represents a different bloodline. Since Derek has identified that Scott's maker is trying to make a pact we can presume that the only current two members of this bloodline are Scott and his maker.
So who's Scott's maker? I've heard the vet, the coach, Scott's missing dad is also a possibility, and a friend of mine mentioned Scott's mom -- she's always "gone" at the right time to be the one, but I don't buy it.
And, lastly, are there other werewolf bloodlines out there? A stretch perhaps, but not much of one; if there are already two there are undoubtedly more. The Argents haven't been chasing dreams all these years.
Les lèvres rouges (1971)
fascinating
"Daughters of Darkness" is a fresh take on the vampire lore, using a character in the guise of a real-life vampire -- the Countess Elizabeth Bathory, cousin to the elected King of Poland -- who was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment for satanic practices in the early 1600s by the Holy Roman Emperor; the Countess bathed in the blood of thousands of peasant girls in order to gain eternal youth & beauty.
In this story, the Countess -- alive & well in 20th century Belgium -- comes across a pair of newlyweds whom she wants to make her next victims -- or her next playmates; for much of the movie the jury is out on which fate she desires most.
This is a fascinating film that falls short of being perfect. Like other great movies, the images and the overall feeling of the film stay with you long after specific details might fade. Although a vampire story, this is primarily about relationships and power.
Stefan and Valerie, newlyweds, end up having a power struggle -- literally in that there is a component of physical violence -- but also mentally in terms of a test of will; Valerie thought she was getting married to a normal man and wants to meet his family and start a life whereas Stefan is determined that she does not meet his "infamous mother."
A power struggle can also be seen between Stefan and his family; their condescending reaction to news of his marriage; the hidden threats about what might happen if this ridiculousness continues; and the unseen mother, whom everyone references so darkly. Although never seen, the mother sounds like she's worse than the vampire of the film -- the Countess Bathory.
Finally, there are the power struggles the Countess engages in -- her control over her "secretary" Ilona, although Ilona tries to thwart her; her cat-and-mouse games where she displays expert skill with the police detective & the hotel manager; her initial enticement of Stefan, which distresses Valerie, and then her growing sexual power over Valerie; finally her struggle with Stefan to gain ultimate possession of Valerie, which results in death -- I won't tell you whose.
So this film is a lot deeper and multi-layered than just a horror genre piece, although God knows I love horror for its own sake. Endlessly watchable; never palls.