ppilf Reviews

Star Trek (1966–1969)

It received only mediocre TV ratings, but spawned one of the most phenomenal franchise successes in entertainment history.

[10/10 · 11 May 2021]

It's not easy to evaluate and grade an entire television series, especially when that series ran only three seasons with mediocre TV ratings, yet spawned one of the most phenomenal franchise successes and one of the largest fan bases over one of the longest periods of time in entertainment history. Whether I found its shows appealing or not, I feel compelled to add grade points just due to the massive number of fans, huge cultural impact, huge film & TV industry impact, longevity, and worldwide fame that this television series generated in the decades following its cancellation.

As for myself, I was age 14 when Star Trek TOS first aired in 1966. My then best friend, Randy, lived across the street from me in our small rural-America town. Randy was a super mega fanatic of the show; he collected every episode's paperback book that was published, getting many of them as birthday and Christmas gifts. I, however, was a mediocre fan, even though I was and still am a huge science fiction fan. I liked the show, I found many episodes very good, some excellent, but overall I found Star Trek TOS a little too fantasy oriented for my taste. And I must also say that I considered some of its episodes, especially the later ones, a bit 'corny' and far-fetched, if you understand what I mean. For me, Star Trek TOS had too many simplistic themes that the lay public associated with popular space travel and space alien myth. I also thought it concentrated too much on social and romantic relationships; I wanted it to focus more on astronomical and scientific stuff. I hold degrees in electronic engineering and physics, so I tend to lean more toward realistic hard core and serious science fiction. I guess the easiest way to explain my critique is by saying that, for me, the show was often more a futuristic soap opera set in outer space rather than a science fiction show. But I attribute that trait as partly the reason that it later became such an enduring cultural phenomenon, appealing to a wide public, rather than only to science fiction, astronomy, and science nerds.

My favorite Star Trek TOS actor was Leonard Nimoy. If Nimoy's character, Spock, hadn't been in the show, I doubt I'd have watched it much. After Nimoy, I found the other actors about equal in screen appeal. Later in my research behind the scenes I learned about the show's star, William Shatner, and his now well-known friction with many of the other actors. Several considered him very difficult to work with. I personally thought he was somewhat of a fish out of water, taking the job only for the work, not really liking the show. He insulted the show and its fans shortly after its cancellation, until of course its huge post popularity came to life; then suddenly he acted like a big fan. The friction with his co-actors apparently existed throughout the entire franchise, including the movies, especially by members in lower ranks. Some people who only met Shatner briefly, or knew him a short while at that time, described him as conceited and rude. His associates did not publicize these personal frictions at the time, keeping them mostly a secret until much later, surprising even Shatner himself. The level of friction varied greatly between associates, some saying that Shatner was not very difficult, while others found him very difficult. Although this kind of friction maybe can't be called common, it isn't rare either. The star of a production does often deal with much greater pressure and responsibility, resulting in difficult relations with others, and sometimes even by necessity. All in all, I think Shatner was hard working, dedicated, and a professional actor who contributed much to Star Trek's success, though he was cold and impersonal, and his dedication lay more to himself, using the show only as a vehicle to achieve great personal success.

During the time that Star Trek TOS aired, Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film, "2001: A Space Odyssey" became my favorite science fiction screen production, followed by the earlier 1951 film, "The Day the Earth Stood Still". At that time I didn't place Star Trek TOS in the same league as these films.

I am a huge fan of the Star Trek TOS cultural phenomenon. I find this television show's late-growing popularity, nostalgia, and enormous effect on society absolutely fascinating. I've followed it closely for decades. The most perplexing trait, of course, is the fact that it grew to such tremendous status, yet originally realized such a mediocre and short production period, being cancelled after only three seasons. Only a few other television shows, such as "Monty Python's Flying Circus", exhibited that trait. But Star Trek TOS had mediocre ratings during its production years, whereas Monty Python was very popular and was cancelled only by choice of the actors, not due to low audience ratings as Star Trek TOS was.

In final analysis I think the enormous and long enduring post popularity of Star Trek TOS was due to its unusual nature (shock effect), mix of actor personalities, and wide spectrum of story themes. Someone may like a particular actor or particular episodes more than another person, but the overall Star Trek TOS family worked very well for the sci-fi community, and touched a deep appeal in a wide spectrum of them. As for those of us who were around during its original airing, it manifests a strong sense of nostalgia and affection. I've found that even people who don't like space travel or sci-fi still retain a strong memory and often a fondness for this TV show. For that reason I think Star Trek TOS became endeared to most of us to some degree, and it entered into the elite status of a 'classic'. So, although I didn't like a lot of the episodes, I still give it a rating of 10.

Gandhi (1982)

ONE OF THE GREATEST MOTION PICTURES OF ALL TIME

[10/10 · 9 April 2021]

GANDHI RANKS AMONGST THE TOP THREE GREATEST MOTION PICTURES IN HISTORY! An epic in every sense; a masterpiece in every sense; a motion picture experience and education that no human should miss. But most of all, Gandhi is the true life story of one of the greatest men who ever walked on this earth.

The Cowboys (1972)

Should have received multiple Academy Award nominations

[10/10 · 14 December 2020]

This is one of my favorite movies, even though I'm not a huge fan of westerns (I like them, just not a huge fan). But this is one of the very best. In fact I still can't believe that this movie didn't receive any Academy Award nominations. I think that was a terrible unjust snub. There was certainly stiff movie competition in 1972, but this film should have received multiple nominations; at least in directing and music.

Everything about this movie was absolutely superb; directing, casting, acting, music, cinematography, action scenes, screenplay, dialog, story, everything; that's all I can say. It's simply one of the greats. But I do think the directing, story, and music are exceptional, and the acting outstanding. The only thing one might be concerned with is that it does contain some moderately serious violence. But that's part of realism in great films, and there is much much worse violence in many other films. Some critics have criticized the revenge aspect of the story as violence gratification, and a bad crutch. But I'm not so sure of that; for me the jury's still out on that.

Everybody refers to John Wayne movies in a category of their own since he was such a huge star. So I'm going to do the same: my favorite John Wayne movies in order are: 1) The Shootist (1976), 2) The Cowboys (1972), 3) True Grit (1969), 4) Rooster Cogburn (1975), 5) The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence (1962), and 5) North to Alaska (1960). As for John Wayne himself, I didn't agree with most of his politics, and I didn't like many of his early movies or his early acting. But I became a big fan of both his movies and his acting in his later career. During that period he was one of our greatest movie stars.

If you haven't seen this movie, see it! Otherwise you will miss what I think is one of the great experiences in movie arts that this industry has to offer.

The Bad Batch (2016)

A wonderful holiday movie for all families

[1/10 · 13 January 2020]

My family watched this movie over the Christmas holidays. It's a heart-warming story of a little girl named Honey who is cared for by a young handicapped woman, Arlen, after the death of Honey's mother. Honey is later taken away from Arlen and unlawfully adopted into a wealthy foster family, because the family assumes they can provide Honey a better life in Comfort than Arlen can. After much turmoil and struggle, Arlen manages to get custody of Honey back again, rescuing her from the domineering foster family. But shortly thereafter Honey's father suddenly shows up again, and we assume this means Honey will once again be taken from Arlen. But the best part of this touching movie is its happy ending. The handicapped Arlen and Honey's father form an unexpected strong loving relationship. And after all the hardship and emotional stress, Honey finally has a happy family and lives in Comfort with her father and Arlen.

Suki Waterhouse puts in a superb performance as Arlen. But what is truly amazing is how real her amputee handicap and prosthetic are made to look, through special effects. Jason Mamoa does a good job playing Honey's father. He is depicted in this film as a man with a slight speech defect and eating disorder. Keanu Reeves plays the head of Honey's temporary foster home. He plays a dreamy, wealthy, but strange ladies man who is obsessed with the plumbing in his large luxurious estate.

I think this movie will become my family's new favorite Christmas movie, replacing 'It's a Wonderful Life'. I recommend it as a traditional holiday movie for all families. -NOT.

Kidding aside, the following is my real review:

On a talent scale of 0 to 10, I'd put Ana Lily Amirpour at about minus 5. Daring to call herself a writer or a director and call this a movie is an insult as much as a joke. Anyone involved in writing, directing, or producing this pathetic puke, and daring to call it a movie should be prosecuted for fraud. Ed Woods could rise from his grave and sue these people for slandering his profession.

This is not a movie. Ana Lily Amirpour is not a movie director or a screenwriter. The actors in this rot have wiped out any and all credits that they may have previously accumulated. They've reset their resumes back to a blank sheet and their slates back to zero.

It's not that I have something against dystopian films. I always say that a great movie can be made of any subject if made by talented artists and professional filmakers. But you need talent and professionals.

Literally and truly, I would hire any of the dozen 5 and 6-year-olds on my block to write a screenplay or direct a movie before I'd pay Ana Lily Amirpour a dime. At least the kids would provide some degree of intelligence.

Mother! (2017)

Don't let the story confuse you

[1/10 · 13 December 2019]

While viewing this movie and contemplating its roller coaster of twisting developments and multiple subplots, I, like all viewers, was perplexed during most of it, and intently tried to figure out the mysterious plot as the story unfolded. And believe it or not, I actually did figure out the correct conclusion before the shocking end: it's a load of manure!

This film is 100% RUBBISH! It is not art, drama, horror, suspense, contemporary production, acting, writing, directing, or anything whatsoever. It is simply the most pathetic bunch of garbage ever put on film. A rating of 1 is infinitely greater than it deserves, but zero rating is not an option on IMDb's web page.

There are many efforts underway in the film industry to preserve films, mostly through digital means, in order to prevent historical and great movies from being lost to future generations. This film and all its copies should, instead, be purposely destroyed in order to prevent it from ever wasting anyone's time again.

I've not tested this in practice so don't quote me, but I'm quite sure that someone who considers this film as art, or rates it above a five, could be proven in a court of law to be certifiably crazy, and legally institutionalized. (just kidding.. somewhat).

My Cousin Rachel (1952)

Absolutely ABSURD plot, albeit superb performances by Burton and de Havilland.

[4/10 · 9 September 2019]

I've not read the book nor seen the 2017 remake of this movie. But as for this 1952 version, I can only say it's really too bad the story involves such an absurdly ridiculous plot premise, because otherwise the acting performances and production qualities are very good. Richard Burton's performance is especially impressive.

Throughout the film's screenplay, British Lord Phillip Ashley (played by Burton) is depicted as an intelligent, well-educated and accomplished British heir. This only makes it more profoundly absurd for the audience to accept the film's ridiculous plot premise that Phillip would legally turn over his entire wealth and estate as a gift to impress a woman, and afterwards expect her to marry him and immediately return that ownership back to him. Especially since this woman has expressed no previous interest in marrying him. NO MAN on this Earth, I don't think even the most mentally challenged asylum resident, no matter how drunk or in love, would ever be so stupid as to do what Phillip did in this movie. This ruins the entire film. Maybe in the book or in the 2017 movie Phillip is depicted as going insane and dying of brain tumor as his brother Ambrose allegedly did, thus making the plot a tiny bit more plausible, albeit more boring. I don't know, as I said, I've not read the book nor seen the 2017 movie. But as for this film, that certainly wasn't the case, and the entire story was just plain silly to me.

That Kind of Woman (1959)

Should have cast Steve McQueen or Tony Curtis as Red

[6/10 · 26 July 2019]

I first saw this film around 1968 when I was age sixteen, long before Tab Hunter came out of the closet. I remember the strong impression I had that he looked unnatural and phony in this part. To me he seemed robot-like, lacking passion and natural mannerisms. But most of all it was that empty doe-eyed radar stare that he locked on Sophia Loren's face in every scene with her. That would've driven me crazy on set. Hunter had zero chemistry with Loren. After the movie I said to my friends, "Nobody will ever convince me that Tab Hunter was a hot leading man or a teen heart throb in the 1950s, this guy wouldn't know what to do with Sophia Loren if he had her in bed". I contrasted his performance with that of Paul Newman in 'Hud' and 'The Hustler'; now there's great acting and natural cool, there's your leading man.

Sophia Loren disowned this film when it was released in 1959. Tab Hunter said it was his favorite film. I knew Hunter was gay long before he came out, but even Montgomery Clift and James Dean were good leading men, so it wasn't the fact that he was gay. Young Tab Hunter simply didn't have the acting skill or the natural screen talent to play the part of Red. Some people claim that he was supposed to have bad chemistry with Loren in this film, but that's just a feeble excuse. Maybe he was supposed to be inexperienced and a bit naïve, but not have bad chemistry, and he most certainly wasn't supposed to do a bad job of acting with Loren. My critique remains the same now as it did in 1968. I agree with Sophia Loren and the critics of 1959, who felt that casting Tab Hunter as Red was the primary cause of this film's failure. I think Loren's performance was outstanding, the other actors performances and the other production aspects of this film were quite good.

Although I thought Tab Hunter was poor in this film and other films of his youth, I became something of a fan of his in his later life. He did some stage acting and made some nutty films later. But I thought he grew into a fair actor and a very good author as he got older, and he became a more 'real' person. When he came out as gay, of course, he became more comfortable and much happier in life. He co-wrote a #1 best seller autobiography published in 2005. In the book he revealed that he was miserable and felt like a misfit throughout his entire youth, and felt he didn't belong in the Hollywood film star business. To me that fact was very transparent. Gay was very unacceptable then, was treated as a mental disease, and was even against the law in some states. I can't imagine the suffering that must have caused members of the gay community.

The Scarlet Coat (1955)

A high school play with a Hollywood budget

[2/10 · 5 July 2019]

It's hard to believe that John Sturges directed this film because he has several excellent films to his credit. He must have been pre-occupied or very limited by his execs during this film. This film is a textbook example of a poor overly complex screenplay coupled with poor directing, like a high school play with a Hollywood budget. The film tells the American revolutionary war story of Benedict Arnold's spy accomplices and exposure at West Point, in an amateurish confusing production that can best be described by yawning. The verbose script was rattled off by emotionless speed-reading manikins posing as actors in fancy phony sets and fancy phony stiff costumes. The camera shots were pretty basic in all the scenes with little variety and no reaction shots or embellishments at all. For some reason Sturges and his production crew couldn't manage action scenes or war scenes, so the film mostly consists of the principle characters posing in a string of boring convoluted stage scenes looking like store manikins with jaw hinges. Most outdoor 'action' scenes were short clips thrown in here and there of horse and riders trotting down Autumn New-England country roads.

Don't waste an hour and half of your life watching this poor attempt at movie production. Use your time instead for something much more interesting, like sleeping or watching paint dry. Better yet, read a good history book about Benedict Arnold.

Goldfinger (1964)

Sean Connery is, and remains, the one and only James Bond

[8/10 · 30 May 2019]

I still enjoy 'Goldfinger' most of all the James Bond movies (along with 'From Russia with Love') although I'm not a big James Bond movie fan because they can be quite absurd. But I must admit that the combination of Sean Connery, the exciting unique music, the international settings, the gadgets and special effects, and the production quality of the original Broccoli 007 films ranks as one of the biggest hit phenomena in film history to this day. Although their story plots could get a bit far-fetched, the films had a very exciting unique style of intrigue that made them super appealing and exciting to watch. They were 'bigger than life'. And I doubt if anyone will ever fully match Sean Connery's awesome suave screen presence in that role. To me the one who comes closest is Daniel Craig. But, again, Sean Connery is, and remains, the one and only James Bond.

Funny Games (2007)

IGNORE THE BAD REVIEWS of this SUPERB film; those people shouldn't be reviewing films

[8/10 · 30 August 2017]

Funny Games (2007) is a USA English-speaking identical remake of the 1997 Austrian film of the same name. Both films were written and directed by the world-renowned Austrian screen playwright and director Michael Haneke, one of the greatest film artists working today. Both films are fascinating psychological crime thrillers that portray the criminal sadist mind. This film is more of the intellectual genre rather than the brainless action/gore thriller; it is sometimes referred to as "playing with your mind". Some people just can't grasp that genre, so please don't let negative reviews by brainless fuddy-duddies influence you. Watch this movie! It is great! Yes, it's very dark, intense, and shocking, but you could list a dozen other famous and great films that are equally dark and shocking. So, I concurrently agree that if you don't like dark psychological crime movies, then you shouldn't view this movie. But to call this a poor film because you can't digest the subject matter is simply dumb.

Funny Games depicts a home invasion perpetrated by two psychopathic young men upon a moderately wealthy young couple who are vacationing at their private lake home with their child son. The two psychopaths gain entry to the victim's home by appearing genuine and normal at first. The screenwriter's combination of "cold politeness" with utter depravity in the two young criminals is part of this film's unique morbid appeal. I won't reveal any further details to avoid further spoiling the suspense and story to prospective viewers.

If you like dark suspense, this film will keep you frightened and glued to your seat from beginning to end. Because one thing that this film is NOT, is predictable. It also contains a surprise scene that temporarily shifts into the realm of fantasy, which further bends minds and entertains the audience. The acting, directing, story development, and screenplay are excellent.

Ozark (2017–2022)

Another crime drama depression fest

[3/10 · 25 July 2017]

Jason Bateman is one of my favorite actors on the present movie/TV landscape, and I watch most everything he's in that comes my way. So I took a big departure by watching a series crime drama, Netflix's premier of Ozark. And I quickly found out why I never watch these hackneyed depression fests that you see so much of today. Ozark is too dark and too violent for me. Personally I detest this trend by cable networks in producing TV series obsessed with crime, violence and murder, and worst of all, trying to sell it as part of so-called normal life of normal people, as if the world is a giant mafia. It's not. People who brand this type of programming as "reality TV" are full of crap. These programs do not at all depict the vast majority of real life or typical real people in the world. If they did, our civilization would collapse.

And it just doesn't make sense to me for two parents to have enough integrity and responsibility to raise and care about children, feel compassion for others, desire a family community life, and yet participate in terrible antisocial crime, conducting business with evil criminals and murderers. It's mutually exclusive; conflicted. In my mind you can't be both a good person and a ruthless criminal. And even if this story does make sense to some people, I loathe it.

In conclusion, I couldn't like Bateman's character, or most of the characters in Ozark. I couldn't continue watching Ozark after the fourth episode, so I stopped, which marks the first time I didn't want to watch a Jason Bateman film. The abysmal story cancels out the good production qualities, acting or directing. The only way I could watch another episode of Ozark is if it promised to include a massive police raid that ends with Del & Snell and their henchmen serving life prison terms (or preferably death sentences), and Marty & Wendy serving probation for felony money laundering, avoiding prison only because they cooperated with police in convicting Del-Snell. That's closer to reality.

Little Mister Jim (1946)

I think I'm going to be sick

[1/10 · 15 July 2017]

The screenplay of this film must have been written by a 3rd grader, and its director a 2nd grader. So if you have an intelligence level above those grades, don't waste your time on this nauseating pablum. Instead watch any episode of "Leave It To Beaver"; it will be a Shakespearian masterpiece by comparison.

Enough said… except maybe Ggaaaggh!!

Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)

Intensely shocking, you'd think it almost taboo for 1950s movies

[9/10 · 23 June 2017]

I recommend that you don't read this review if you haven't seen this film, but intend to. This film is all about suspense that builds to a shocking end. It is usually classified as a mystery, but could almost rank as horror.

"Suddenly, Last Summer" is an excellent film made by talented movie professionals, and it deserved all the accolades and awards for which it was nominated and won. However, I'm always surprised by some people who attempt to gloss over, or even deny, the extremely harsh subject matter of its story. Plain and simple, the story is based on a wealthy man who was secretly a homosexual child molester – an intense subject for 1950s movies. This man also possessed a lurid charm, and was loved and respected by family and community. The man spent much of his life traveling extensively overseas, secretly using his inherited wealth to lure young poor foreign boys into sex, until one summer his criminal escapades came crashing down in a bizarre dramatic and gory end that resulted in his death. The movie starts at the point of his death, and this post plot is perhaps most shocking of all: his wealthy mother (played by Katharine Hepburn) had actually assisted him in his past crimes, and after his death she takes extreme felonious measures in a desperate attempt to bury her son's dark secret.

Playing the villain in a movie was a departure for Hepburn, but she performed it with her usual perfection, as proved by both her and Taylor's nominations for best actress.

Even today this would be a gritty subject for a movie; so it must have been really taboo in the 1950s. It is my understanding that even Tennessee Williams (author of the original play) was not happy that it was made into a movie. I don't think a movie like this could easily be made today, and be as successful. It is certainly not for children, although they'd probably watch it without understanding its full implications. But I don't like adults who try to hide this movie's subject matter, and pretend it's about psychiatry, because it's not.

This film also exemplified the social activism of Elizabeth Taylor and Katharine Hepburn, both women ahead of their time, both considered this film important in dealing with unpleasant truths, something neither woman shrank away from during their careers. Both women were also expressly angry with director Joseph Mankiewicz's ill treatment of actor Montgomery Clift during the filming of this movie. Clift was going through a tough time, having recently suffered his infamous car accident. I think Clift cast as Dr. John Cukrowicz was one of the key elements to this film's success.

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016)

Two hours of chaotic meaningless CGI and special effects

[3/10 · 31 March 2017]

This movie's title and trailers made it look really interesting to me, but it was a big disappointment. The special effects and film production were great, but that's all that can be said good of this film. The story, plot, and characters are just a mishmash of bizarre convoluted nonsense. To put it bluntly, the story is just plain stupid from beginning to end, even for a children's fantasy. If you were to ask me about the acting in this film, it'd be hard to answer because there really aren't any scenes with enough coherent dialog for any serious acting. This movie is best described as two boring hours of chaotic meaningless CGI and special effects. My recommendation, even to children, is don't waste your time and money on this let-down.

This movie is a substandard effort by Tim Burton. His movies are never mainstream Hollywood, and are a bit quirky, but they usually do have a degree of quality in the story, script, and art, as well as the special effects. But not this one. I'm beginning to think I'm correct about aging great movie directors/producers, like Ridley Scott (Prometheus). I think they decide to rake in a load of retirement money by cashing in on the huge demographic of young and dumb 12-year-old movie goers. The film makers abandon their usual standards, and make brainless CGI action blockbusters for the big PG movie dollars. Well.. maybe sometimes you can't blame them.

Sully (2016)

The true story of a great modern hero; everybody should see this terrific film!

[10/10 · 1 December 2016]

He was smarter than the air traffic controllers, the NTSB investigators, the flight simulator pilots, the flight simulation computers; he even outsmarted fate itself. On January 15, 2009 in New York City, 155 airline passengers and crew, plus an unknown number of people on the ground were all spared from a horrible and fiery death that fate had planned for them on that day. All their lives were saved because of one fact: the brain of Captain Chesley Sullenberger was in the cockpit of US Airways flight 1549 on that day.

Forget about presidents, royalty, movie stars, or great scientists; if I could choose one famous person that I could meet before I die, it would be Chesley Sullenberger.

Excellent directing, acting, screenplay, editing, and special effects; but mostly, the true story of a great modern hero. Everybody should see this terrific film!

Angel and the Badman (1947)

Amateurish directing, acting, and production, Gail Russell is the only redeeming element

[5/10 · 19 September 2016]

Gail Russell is the only part of this movie worth viewing. Her role is the only thing to salvage it from utter boredom. The story is somewhat okay; but the directing, dialog, sets, camera work, background music, film editing, screenplay, and costumes are all mediocre. John Wayne's acting performance, like most of the remaining cast, is unconvincing to downright hammy. Words that describe this film production: unprofessional, phony, corny. Not once did this movie make me feel as if I were in the old west, among gunfighters, on a Quaker farmstead, in an 1800's church meeting, or a saloon. Instead, the whole time I felt like I was on the movie set of a B-western. We all know that the Duke matured into a professional actor later in his life. But in his early and middle career, his performance depended a great deal on the quality of direction, production staff, script, and supporting actors, as this movie attests. On the other hand, Gail Russell's acting performance and beauty prove what natural talent and star potential she had. It's such a tragedy that she suffered the emotional and alcohol abuse problems that ruined her life and career, and cut them both so tragically short.

Eddie Izzard: Dress to Kill (1998 Video)

One of the greatest stand-up comedy shows in history

[10/10 · 15 September 2016]

This show is almost historical to me. I remember coming home from work one late summer day in 1999. I had dinner, went into the living room and sat down in front of the big-screen TV. The channel happened to be on HBO but I wasn't particularly interested in watching, I mainly wanted to nap. There was a guy on TV dressed kind of unusual doing a stand-up comedy routine. I had no idea who or what it was, but the guy did seem kind of cool. As a lark I turned up the sound and watched a little. At this point I completely forgot about my nap. I started laughing. He was hilarious. Then came a skit that made me laugh so hard that I found it hard to catch my breath. Then the humor came like rapid fire, one after the other, each more unbelievably hilarious than the previous. I was laughing so uncontrollably that I started to feel pain in my lungs and started to choke, I felt like I was going to hurl! Get this; I actually had to make the reluctant decision to turn off the TV because I was afraid I was going to suffocate! I couldn't breathe, my chest was throbbing in pain; and I'm in very good shape! I couldn't help thinking that this was the Monty Python death joke in real life! I'm actually hard to make laugh, but this guy is a phenomenon, a secret weapon, arguably the greatest comedian of all time (not to mention very intelligent and educated). After recovering I immediately looked up the next HBO airing of that show, and set up my VCR to record it. I'd never heard of Eddie Izzard prior to that day, but I immediately became a permanent and devoted fan!

Possession (1981)

the film editors should have chucked this entire film onto the cutting room floor

[1/10 · 24 April 2016]

This piece of rubbish is not horror, drama, art, suspense, contemporary production, acting, writing, directing, or anything whatsoever. It is simply the most pathetic bunch of garbage ever put on film. It's a horrendous waste of time, film, and money. Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959) is an Academy award winning epic compared to this trash. A rating of 1 is infinitely greater than it deserves, but zero rating is not an option on IMDb's web page.

There are many efforts underway in the film industry to preserve old films, mostly through digital means, in order to prevent historical and great films from being lost to future generations. This film and all its copies should, instead, be purposely destroyed in order to prevent it from ever wasting anyone's time again.

Hollywoodland (2006)

Perhaps the best biopic noir movie ever made; Brody and Affleck are brilliant

[10/10 · 26 November 2015]

To me, this movie is among the best movies of the past decade. I absolutely love historical American biopic film noir set in the 1950's, especially set in Tinsel town. And this is the best film I've seen in that genre. Also, as a kid I was absolutely nuts about the original TV series "Adventures of Superman" starring George Reeves. Once, when we lived in Houston, Texas, my parents were expecting company, and my mother was busy vacuuming the living room when the Superman show came on. I came running in from outside right on schedule, grabbed a cookie, turned on the TV, turned up the volume, and began to watch as I always religiously did. As my mother passed in front of the TV vacuuming, she switched off the TV and told me to go back outside and play because she had to clean up for the guests. Well, I'll be brief and simply say that I went into full-blown convulsions, complete with screaming, falling to the floor, kicking, and choking on my cookie. My mother was dumbfounded by my reaction; she stood motionless staring at me with the vacuum whirring in her hand. She had never seen me act like that before, or since. She realized that I was neurotically serious about this TV show, and so she immediately turned it back on. I instantly recovered and continued watching like a hypnotized zombie, and she returned to her vacuuming. If you knew my mom you'd know how rare this was because she almost never reversed a parental command to her kids, nor did she flinch from spanking us if we were overly stubborn.

Getting back to this film, Ben Affleck was brilliant in his portrayal of George Reeves. His was the most difficult role because the public knows Reeves. Affleck's mannerisms, body movements, facial expressions, and dialog were perfect Reeves to the tee, even though his voice is a bit different. That kind of research and acting ability separates the pros from the rookies. Affleck is a consummate professional, a great actor. Adrien Brody, also a consummate professional, and one of my favorites, was absolutely superb in the role of detective Louis Simo. I don't think anyone could have given a better performance as a young 1950's real-life LA private eye, complete with reality life problems. Brody made this picture a success as the driving force at the helm; he was thoroughly enjoyable to watch. Diane Lane was also great as Toni Mannix. I consider the casting for this film a work of genius, because Robin Tunney, Jeff DeMunn, Bob Hoskins, Neil Crone, Caroline Dhavernas, and Joe Spano all gave superb performances, as did all the actors in this film.

But I think the real heroes of this great film are director Allen Coulter, producer Glenn Williamson, writers Howard Korder and Paul Bernbaum, and the production professionals. Pre-production research and accuracy are extremely important in a biopic film. This film's story and character accuracy, cinematography, depiction of 1950's Los Angeles, background music, artistry, sound and film editing, are absolutely amazing work by some of the greatest film talents of our time. I particularly liked the film's beautiful story art and human reflection on Reeve's life and personal tragedies, and Simo's deepening personal emotions as he investigates Reeve's death, finding some parallels between Reeve's life and his own.

This movie is among my most important art possessions. I first saw it in a theater when it was released in 2006. I was divorced at the time, and I went alone to a crowded city theater. I quietly slipped into the dark theater with my popcorn and soda, because I really wanted to see this film. Somehow I knew I'd love it, and I did. This film does not disappoint. When the DVD came out I immediately purchased one. Whether I'm facing a life tragedy, or I'm depressed, had a bad day, or simply want to enjoy a beautiful movie, I can slip a DVD like this into the player and be transferred to another place and time, entertained, and cured of my burdens all at once. I can't begin to express my appreciation for the people who come together and create great works like this movie, nor can I express my awe in their amazing talents.

Biopic films like this are grossly under-appreciated by the public. These movies don't rake in the vast numbers of 12 to 18 year-olds who make up the large demographic of movie goers, thus don't rake in huge box office revenues like the dumb action-hero, sci-fi CGI, and horror thrillers do. I guess most people would also be bored reading Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, preferring a Hobbit fantasy novel instead. They'd toss Einstein's book aside, never appreciating the great accomplishment in human intellect that they just trashed. This is why I so appreciate the people who produce these movies. They give the world the fruits of their amazing talents, with little monetary reward. They leave us great works of art and history for posterity. Thankfully, Hollywoodland eventually did make a small profit after DVD rentals and sales, which restores some of my confidence in the American public.

The Last of Robin Hood (2013)

Excellent film; Kevin Kline is great

[9/10 · 25 July 2015]

I eagerly awaited the release of this movie. And it met my expectations well, which is unusual because most movies that I highly anticipate end up disappointing me due to my built-up expectations. This one didn't. It is very well made from beginning to end. All three main actors did a great job portraying their characters; true professionals. Kevin Kline's depiction of Errol Flynn was amazing. His was the most demanding role because the whole world knows Errol Flynn.

I love historical reality dramas like this when produced properly by professionals. Films like this not only require highly experienced and talented people, but require a great deal of research and preproduction. To me these movies come the closest to reverse time travel. This movie did a very good job of transporting me back to 1950s Hollywood, to the streets and sound stages of Warner studios, and witnessing the last private two years of the aging bigger-than-life star Errol Flynn. As every movie critic knows, the quintessential trait of a good movie is the ability to make the viewer forget he/she is watching a movie. Reality and accuracy are important to me. I'm a fan of the reality film noir genre. I don't like the older "big production" historical or biopic movies that put on airs and over-glamorize like a 17th century opera. I truly think people who gave this movie a bad review simply aren't qualified to critique biographical films, or appreciate the art and science of film production. I think they might also have a preconceived notion of what Errol Flynn's life should have been like, which is narrow-minded. These people probably have a taste for the old phony fantasy biopics that I dislike so much, such as "Night and Day"(1946), a badly embellished film about composer Cole Porter. Errol Flynn was certainly a megastar who led a life of fame and fortune, but it wasn't all as grandiose and wonderful as some people might think, especially due to Flynn's lifelong health problems. I will agree that perhaps it would have been nice if this movie had some scenes aboard Flynn's famous yacht Zaca, and scenes of the lavish trips and gala Hollywood elite events that Flynn and Aadland attended. Unfortunately, historical biopics like this just don't draw the huge young and dumb movie crowd that action-hero, sci-fi, and space thrillers do. And I just don't feel right taking points off my rank of a biographical film only because it lacked money in its budget.

I'm always thankful for talented film producers, directors, actors, and crews who provide their valuable time and talents making wonderful biopics like this. There aren't many people in the general movie-going public who appreciate these rare productions. My DVD of this movie is one of my highly valued film art possessions.

Casablanca (1942)

A Classic - great acting, directing, dialog & music - but has bad story flaws

[9/10 · 4 March 2015]

Like all movie fans, I love the movie Casablanca. It's in the top 15 of my list of favorite movies. It is truly a classic. Its great actors, director, music, dialog, and romance arouse deep emotion. According to the film's makers, Casablanca was one of those amazing unexpected successes that fate occasionally surprises us with. Apparently no one involved in making this movie expected it to be the famous classic it became. Reportedly, some of the actors and film makers nearly turned it down because the script just seemed like another unremarkable war movie. What I find amazing is that it is set in late 1941, less than a year before it was written, filmed, edited and released; long before World War 2 even ended. Some reports claim it was a propaganda film; not sure that's true.

Casablanca contains two scenes that are among favorites of mine. The scene in which Ilsa and Laszlo first meet Sam and Rick in Rick's nightclub. And the scene in which Laszlo tells the nightclub orchestra to play the French national anthem to counter a group of Nazi officers loudly singing a patriotic German song; all the patrons then join in singing the French anthem, totally drowning out the Nazis. The emotion aroused by these and many other scenes in this film attest to the talent of the director, actors, film editors, music composers, and production staff.

But, although Casablanca is a very moving experience that captivates its audience, its story plot and subplots have very bad faults, at some points downright absurd. These are known among critics, authors, and even war historians. I'm a terrible stickler for detail by nature and I can't help but absorb all aspects of a movie. I consider these story flaws unfortunate because the screenplay is otherwise beautifully written; it won an Academy award. Casablanca also won Academy awards for best picture and best director, all very much deserved. The main criticism with the story is the fictitious "letters of transit" which are supposed to be some sort of super passport, and would certainly have to possess supernatural powers to wield the effect and great value depicted in this story. The letters (plural for some reason) play a key role in the plot. There are many flaws in this concept and in the entire story; it really becomes ridiculous at points. So, being the admitted (nearly anal?) stickler for detail that I am, I've actually listed some of those flaws below for anyone interested:

1) First, of course, there's no such thing as letters of transit, never has been. It would seem that a simple forged passport or visa would be a better travel authorization in 1941 unoccupied Morocco.

2) If there were such documents, they could easily be revoked and made useless, just as any document can, and just as governments routinely do with passports that are reported lost or stolen. The purported rareness of these letters, which is supposed to make them so ridiculously valuable, would actually make them much more a risk and a red flag in travel rather than an aid (unless they cause inspectors and soldiers to go into magical trances).

3) Suppose the far-fetched premise is true that these letters are worth over 200,000 francs in 1941 (about $100,000 in today's U.S. dollar). One could easily have them forged for far less. Passports and exit visas are being forged throughout this movie. If government passports can be forged, with their special paper, cryptic engravings and invisible watermarks, then letters and signatures can easily be forged.

4) Again, assume the letters really are that valuable. You'll realize, as I think everyone watching this movie realizes, Ugarte's dumb assumption that by handing the letters temporarily over to Rick somehow safeguards these valuable papers, is absurd. Ugarte could protect them a thousand times better by simply burying them or hiding them in a bush or under an old shed. And savvy Rick would certainly know this. But of course it's important to the story plot for Rick to possess these magic letters. As for Rick's piano hiding place, a 10 year old kid could find a more secure place.

5) Lastly (but not least), Rick's plan proposed to Renault is nonsense. He tells Renault to release Laszlo from petty charges so Rick can lure him into buying the transit letters. Renault is then supposed to arrest Laszlo and turn him over to the Nazis who can then supposedly imprison Laszlo for many years for the serious crime of possessing the letters. In the meantime Rick and Ilsa will be on the plane to Lisbon, using the omnipotent transit letters for travel. What's wrong with this picture? The absurdity is that Laszlo won't be in possession of the letters, Rick and Ilsa will. How will this incriminate Laszlo? Or are the Nazis going to give the letters back to Rick after Laszlo is in prison so that Ilsa and Rick can flee? Totally absurd. Even Renault would be smart enough to see that.

But, again with all of that said, Casablanca's other qualities are so great that they outweigh the drawbacks. It is still a brilliantly directed and beautifully produced classic. It's just a bit of a shame that more time wasn't spent developing a more realistic plot. That would have made it a near perfect film.

The Swimmer (1968)

Beautiful film, but can someone tell me what it was about?

[9/10 · 4 March 2015]

It seems to me there's a story not being told here that drove this movie. It was very well made, very sentimental, the music was especially beautiful, and I liked Burt Lancaster's performance much better than usual. But I did get a tiny bit bored because it never revealed the story. Was he successful at one time in some business, and then failed? Did he marry for money, and loved someone else? Was he feeling sentimental regret because he loved his wife and family but failed as a husband and father, and if so, why? Or was he feeling regret for something entirely different? I just couldn't figure it out.

This film is very unique in that it is the only film I've ever seen that I can say I really liked a lot, but can someone please tell me what the hell it was about?

Interstellar (2014)

Interstellar is fantasy, not science fiction

[5/10 · 26 February 2015]

Although the visual effects are good, Interstellar (shouldn't it be "Intergalactic"?) is just too far-fetched. It's nothing like the believable film of human planetary migration that I was led to believe, and was hoping for. I've never been a fantasy fan. I majored in electrical-electronics engineering and physics in my 6 years of college, so I am a bit of a nerd and science stickler. When I view (or read) science fiction, to me the "fiction" should apply to the story, not to the science. In fantasy, the fiction applies to the science. Personally, I wish the film industry would make more realistic dramas about human space exploration. Hollywood's blockbuster profit machine abandons serious science fiction art, and, like Prometheus, made Interstellar into another action-packed CGI thriller crapper that caters to 13 to16 year-olds (the large demographic of movie going audience-$$$). And, of course, no sex, violence, horror, or language to get it an R rating.

Interstellar's story is quite crazy. In it we humans, in the very distant future, discover how to communicate backward in time somehow by using gravity. Also, we (or they?) discover how to create crazy things like wormholes anywhere in time and space. Both of these things are quite insane. Anyway, our future humans supposedly use their fantastic smarts to send us (present humans) subtle messages that help in our quest to migrate to another planet, because earth is presently dying. And here's a real clincher, apparently our future selves have a morbid sense of humor, because they don't send us clear-cut messages (like any sensible race would do), they make it a silly game by sending mysterious coded riddles that we have to first solve. Things like coded binary numbers sent by arranging the books on the shelves in a young girl's bedroom; the numbers turn out to be coordinates to a giant secret underground NASA spaceship factory located below cornfields. Another mystery message leads us to a wormhole near the planet Saturn that our future super humans have kindly created for us, and maintained there. This fantastic (and quite absurd) wormhole leads to a cluster of candidate earth-like planets in a distant galaxy. But our future relatives don't want to make the game too easy, so the next step requires us to build numerous spacecraft, fly to and thru the wormhole, and explore the candidate planets to find which one is the jackpot. While doing this our explorers encounter all kinds of treacherous and crazy things, like planets with mile-high waves in 18-inch deep water, entering and exiting a rotating black hole, mentally unstable astronauts, and surviving and navigating fantastic spacecraft thru enormous gravitation fields that cause relativistic time dilation leaving an astronaut younger than his daughter. Typical things that any astronaut would experience over a few years… right.

I read that physicist Kip Thorne was a consultant for this film, and he said he tried to keep it as authentic as possible. Well, he really stretched authentic here. I agree with ASU physicist Lawrence Krauss. I don't think Thorne served physics well working with this film. Oh I don't argue with his gravitational lensing, or other more straight forward aspects like the time dilation and the rotating black hole "gargantua". But things like our future ancestors communicating backward in time via gravity, and creating wormholes? Or like Cooper entering into a singularity, reversing time, fidgeting with the past (multiverses?), and then exiting? I'm not sure what world Thorne is living in to call all that authentic. For example, take the wormhole (..please!). This hypothetical concept is a physics metaphor used in teaching general relativity. Many people may not know that there is absolutely no evidence or accepted scientific theory suggesting that wormholes actually exist in any form anywhere, or, even more fantastic, can be created and traversed by humans. In fact the inconceivable energy, matter, and forces alone involved with such a hypothetical warp would make it impossible for humans to "create" one. Black holes, on the other hand, are not only scientifically known to be possible, but are known to exist. Entering and exiting the event horizon of a rotating black hole is purely hypothetical, and is certainly not considered scientifically possible, partly because literally nothing is known about black hole singularity. Yet all these things are depicted in very silly fantasy in Interstellar. Also, I swore I saw a 2013 Dodge Ram pickup and a cute robot with artificial human intelligence in the movie. Fantasy. It appeals to the target child audience.

Not only the wacky science, but the excessive pace of Interstellar made for a poor film. There's no pausing to smell roses in this film. The fast pace hindered character development and made for shallow story development. Frankly, I can't remember being so happy to see a movie end. It became a struggle to watch. Also, a lot of McConaughey's speech seemed to be at whisper level bordering on mumble, which I found irritating. The background music was okay, but not great.

I consider the films Gravity, and my favorite, Alien (1979), much better. They aren't perfect realism, but at least they don't have ghosts from the future and manmade wormholes.

In closing, I must say that I truly do believe humanity will someday migrate from earth, but it will NEVER be anything like this movie depicts. How sure am I of this? If I'm wrong I hereby promise to pay each living human being in the universe a million dollars. Being able to afford that is more probable than the science in this film.

Yellow Sky (1948)

Has the makings of a great western, but flounders a bit in second half

[8/10 · 27 January 2015]

This movie has the makings of a great western, one of the best. An interesting note about this movie is that a color remake was made of it twenty years later entitled "The Jackals" which was far inferior. I think a comparison of these two movies should be made in colleges of film production. The 1948 version is so superior to the remake in every respect that the remake becomes a case study in bad film making, and demonstrates that newer does not always mean better. The 1948 version was not only superior in directing, acting, editing and soundtrack, but surprisingly it was technically superior also. For example, in many of the chase scenes and desert crossing scenes it can be seen that a moving camera was used in the 1948 film. This is especially noticeable in the scene where Walrus takes the first drink from his whiskey-filled canteen while crossing the desert. A moving camera creates a much more professional and pleasing effect in these types of scenes. I actually didn't know they had that capability in 1948 without causing a shaky image; I assume the moving camera was on rails. In my view, the only thing somewhat good that can be said of the 1967 remake is Diana Ivarson's performance. Everything else about that film is really really bad!

Getting back to this film, I said it had the makings of a great western. But I took points off because of story flaws. It was a bit far-fetched. There were too many ways and opportunities for Grandpa and Mike (Anne Baxter) to protect their fortune instead of literally taking their abductors into partnership as they did. Grandpa was too appeasing. The first 30-35 minutes of this movie developed into what could have been the best western I've ever seen. But the script and story began to flounder. Gregory Peck's character "Stretch" was often conflicting; both a hardened criminal and honest good guy at the same time.

Another thing that may sound minor but always irritates me is in the scene where Peck's character first approaches the house. In this scene Mike, from the house, draws a bead on the approaching Peck, ordering him to halt or she'll shoot. She then does something very stupid; she quickly walks right up to Peck and gets in his face with her gun drawn on him. Grandpa also does this later. Of course this is to accommodate the script part where Peck quickly disarms Mike. Have you ever played that game where someone holds a dollar bill in your open fingers and says you can keep the bill if you can catch it? But you never can because the bill is too close to your fingers; you don't have time to react to a sudden move. If you hold a gun on a perpetrator and then walk up to his face, you may as well hand him the gun because the same reaction time advantage takes effect; he can quickly foil you in one fast move. No one would do what Mike and Grandpa did in that scene, it's stupid. It always bugs me when I see it, I consider it a flaw.

I also thought the background and theme music were weak throughout the film.

Anne Baxter's acting performance, however, was superb, and oh yes, she's also hot. The other actors' performances were also very good. As always Richard Widmark, one of my favorites, was terrific in this movie.

I think if the story had been more stimulating and believable, and better music used in the soundtrack, this film might be a classic today.

Prometheus (I) (2012)

Another disappointing attempt to squeeze more Alien blood

[6/10 · 14 January 2015]

This movie, like all other sequels to the 1979 movie "Alien" (in this case also called a "prequel", I guess), was a big disappointment to me, as I think it is to all serious science fiction lovers. I think I'm even more disappointed in Ridley Scott for directing it. Prometheus is another feeble attempt to squeeze more blood from the 1979 classic film. Prometheus did make a lot of money at the box office by appealing to the dumb and young movie audience masses, and will probably make more profit in other media. I guess one really can't fault film producers for wanting to get rich in their retirement. The plot of Prometheus convolves the original Alien story into a whacky futuristic thriller adventure in order to maximize use of CGI, and appeal to the 12 year old intelligence level, which is the largest demographic sector of the movie-going public.

The original film, Alien, a great classic and favorite of mine since I first saw it as a young man with my girlfriend in a 1979 movie theater, has been the source of many poor efforts to capitalize on its greatness and fame. Granted, some of the original movie's special effects could have been better, but its story, film editing, visual effects, directing, camera work, screenplay, script, and acting were pure science fiction genius, brought together to make a beautiful classic suspense film that I am now convinced will never be improved upon, mainly because the film industry is driven by profit rather than art. Personally, I think it would be nice if film makers stopped getting a piece of the 1979 film action, and concentrate more on creating new original, serious science fiction motion picture art.