Reviews
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)
Wow. I am very impressed with George Clooney, Director.
Honestly, I have a very hard time liking actors whose main talent seems to be "being themselves", the Godfather of actors who do this, is, of course, Jack Nicholson, but he is by no means the only one to do this, and it isn't always the actors' fault, to this end, I have never thought of Clooney as a great actor, although I really liked his work in "Roseanne", and while I enjoyed his directing of "Good Night and Good Luck", "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" is a far, FAR superior film.
Years and years ago, I found Chuck Barris' book "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" in the Mesa (AZ) Public library, I read it, frankly disbelieving many parts of the book (guess which ones), but started thinking about all the stuff he DIDN'T say in his book, which if one were so deluded as Barris seems to be (at first blush), why would he not simply claim the CIA propped up Barris' game shows, so as to keep his cover in place? Instead he relates being part of a spy exchange, where the main spy was a former contestant of the show, in effect, doing the enemy's work for them (otherwise known as being hoisted by their petards). And honestly, WHY would they pick such places to send the winners as West Berlin (during the height of the Cold War) and Helsinki? Why not send them to Paris, Amsterdam, London?
The one country I cannot remember Barris and Co. ever taking winners to was Austria. In Austria (what was, at the time, sort of the neutral country spies from all over the political spectrum came to do their work (recruiting traitors, assassination assignments, exchanging Intel, etc) in relative safety. But from Barris' own book, he never went there (but being deliberately vague as to where he DID get his assignments). Anyway, the book, does strain "Suspension of Disbelief" pretty hard at times. The movie makes it all seem pretty damn possible. Again, though, the only thing I have trouble swallowing is the whole "Spy Exchange" part of the movie. The East (The East European Iron Curtain) suffered GRIEVOUS losses in scientists, engineers, teachers, etc., basically, intellectuals tend to shun repressive societies, moving or emigrating to less restrictive countries to live and work. Because of this fact, the US and its Allies were collecting enormous amounts of Intel from these disgruntled citizens of the "Worker's Paradise", while the Iron Curtain's very isolationism caused them to receive very little Intel in return (comparatively).
The point is, they would have held onto a CIA assassin, getting as much information about his contacts and such as they could. Point 2, Barris was (allegedly) hired by the "CIA" as an "independent contractor", who would be, as a matter of SOP, be cast off immediately, all connections with existing contacts would be broken, all drops used by that agent would be abandoned, any thing that operative knew would be automatically assumed to now be information the enemy has and can use against us. Point 3: Long story short, as soon as he was captured, he was irrevocably compromised- the KGB would at LEAST have full photos and a file on Barris, as a result of his capture in East Berlin; once "outed", his "cover" was blown and his arrival in ANY foreign country would put the KGB on alert, especially since they only had to watch the shows to determine where Barris was at any given time.
But I'll tell you what, this is one helluva movie. Again, a lot of today's actors try, but they're actually personalities-Clooney got some incredible performances out of some of them. The first time I remember seeing Sam Rockwell was in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Gallaxy", where he impressed me as someone who could'not perform a credible George W. Bush impersonation. But I'll tell you, he deserved an Oscar nomination for his work in this movie.
And Clooney should have gotten a Best Director nomination as well. Drew Barrymore was mesmerizing, but Krista Allen has one of the best scenes in the entire movie, giving Barris these come hither glances, luring him into this private area where's she's in the water and he's standing a the side of a pool and she very intelligently eviscerates him and his ideas about what constitutes entertainment in the US.
I HIGHLY recommend this movie, but do NOT think it's non-fiction: The subtitle of Barris' book (and this movie) is, "An Unauthorized Autobiography", but if there were a shred of truth to Barris' "admissions", the book would never have been published in the first place. The screenwriter had a much lighter touch writing the movie, than Barris had, writing the book. Clooney did an excellent job with what has to have been a fascinating but difficult to adapt story of the "alleged" life of Chuk Barris.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
Well, I was sort of disappointed...
I've said this in other reviews, without a story, you can give the audience all the smoke and mirrors you want, still no one will give a damn.
The director seems to have a great eye for 30s art deco (which I love), and I think the idea of using all digital backgrounds and such could indeed be the wave of the future in movie making. However, it's obvious the director got so interested in the digital rendering of his movie, he forgot to film many scenes which would have enormously helped this surprisingly thinned-plotted film. (SPOILER) For crying out loud, they forgot to have a villain in this thing! OK they have one, but he's been dead for 20 years by the time the movie takes place. Conran misses the point of HAVING a villain. As far as action goes, well let's see, Sky Captain (Law) shoots down ONE robot, two or three of the flapping wing airplanes (before Dex (Ribisi) tells him to stop shooting them down!!!), and a couple robots, but mostly spends his time looking dashing and getting others to fight his battles for him. Paltrow as Polly or Peggy or Punky or whatever is totally wasted in this movie (the reviewer who comments on hers and Law's lack of chemistry is so right) and I for one got a little sick of seeing repeated shots of the top of her camera, showing she ONLY HAS TWO SHOTS LEFT, both of which she wastes subsequently in the movie, one uncomically, one quite funny, although I saw it coming from 70 years away. No one except Law and Paltrow have any significant time on screen, and that's the movie's real flaw. An audience doesn't identify with robots, they need a hero to root for, and a visible, despicable villain to hate. Without that, plus a good engaging story, all the CG in the world won't help.
Catalina Caper (1967)
Here's a puzzler...
I'll not waste your time rehashing the plot of this dismal little feature, it's been done already. I'll just touch on the one thing no one else has brought up.
One of the many "stars" in this tepid little blah of a movie is an enigmatic little butterball named Jim Begg. Mr. Begg did quite a few movies during the 60s, never as a star, always as a character actor. Be it a Don Knotts western ("Shakiest Gun in the West"), a light hearted comedy-that-ain't ("Catalina Caper") or a Sci Fi pic ("Village of the Giants"). Of course, it goes without saying, all these movies stank. They still stink, the actors stank (all except Joy Harmon in "Village"... Va-VOOM), the plots blew, etc. You know all this.
But who is Jim Begg? He has NO autobiographical info listed, no websites, nothing. I don't even know if the guy is still alive. If any of you know anything that can be confirmed, please add it to his biographical info on this site.
The Love God? (1969)
More Sophisticated than Knott's Usual Fare
Well, I just watched "The Love God?" on DVD, part of a 2 DVD, 4 movie set called "The Reluctant Hero" Set. In addition to "The Love God?", "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken", "The Reluctant Astronaut" and "The Shakiest Gun in the West" are also included in the set.
I had never seen "The Reluctant Astronaut" or "The Love God?" before now, the other two movies having been shown on TV many times as I was growing up. I can see why "The Reluctant Astronaut" has been shown little, if at all. Very clumsy movie, the kind of Jerry Lewis farce the French drool over, without Lewis. "Ghost and Mr Chicken" and "Shakiest Gun" are two decent examples of why Knotts could carry a movie well, even though his whole career has been almost 50 years of playing Barney Fife.
"The Love God?" is different. The tone is more Rock Hudson/Doris Day sex farce, almost as though the script were written for them, but Day passed because it was a little TOO sexy for her or something. Knotts plays his standard milquetoast Walter-Mitty type character, Abner Audubon Peacock, the publisher of a defunct birdwatching magazine in a small town. Due to circumstances beyond his control, he ends up the figurehead publisher of a tawdry (by 60s standards) skin mag. Brought to trial on obscenity charges (the "Apple Dumpling Gang" this ain't), his good name is being smeared all over the trial (by both the prosecutor AND the defense), to the titillation of the repressed, mostly middle aged female spectators in the court.
Anne Francis plays a manipulative rival magazine publisher who goes to work for Peacock with plans to build him up into a media Sex Symbol. He's surrounded by women who would make Derek Flint drool (Peacock's Pussycats), given a swinging bachelor pad a la Austin Powers, and almost forgets he's supposed to marry his childhood sweetheart back home, played patiently and sweetly by Maggie Peterson.
James Gregory (that annoying LT in "Barney Miller") has a GREAT time in his role as Abner's defense attorney, a man less concerned with libeling his own client than in seeing himself on the News. Only when Abner threatens to tell everyone he only wants to publish his little Bird Magazine does Gregory actually even look at him (and that only happens after Peacock is found Not Guilty). Gregory spent the trial condemning Peacock's life, his character and his patriotism (remember this is Peacock's defense attorney), all because Peacock publishes smut. When Abner, in an effort to clear his good name, decides to hold a press conference and tell everyone he's just interested in publishing a bird magazine, Gregory almost BEGS him to continue to publish the smut for which he was so reviled in the courtroom.
The plot is direct, but there are a lot of extraneous subplots whirling around. Francis' role is especially confusing. One scene has her firing some of the Pussycats out of jealousy over Abner (truly!), the next scene she's conniving with the magazine's silent partner/mob boss to keep Abner a completely duped, completely manipulated, completely contrived "sex symbol" so the magazine he supposedly publishes will continue selling out every month, then she's drugging him, pretending to spend the night with him, in order to stop Abner from admitting to the world he's never been with a woman before. Also, this is a bit edgier of a role for Knotts, who actually gets to right hook the mob boss once, and even knocks his fiancée on HER butt and out cold, as the mob boss is about to shoot them all and she won't leave Abner's side. Of course, this being a movie from the 60s, when she comes to, she looks at Abner adoringly, no thoughts of removing his genitalia on their wedding night apparent from her expression. She looks almost enraptured. Of course, these days, this type of behavior would never be allowed, and even considering the times, the sight of Don Knotts tagging a woman on the chin with his fist is pretty jarring.
The subtext of this movie is pretty plain: In this media-driven world, ANYONE can be made to look desirable, wanted, cool, what have you. I wonder what Nat Hiken (writer/director) thinks now when he watches "The Swan" or "Extreme Makeover" or some of these other blatantly "You're Not Good Enough" shows. Does he feel his film was somehow prescient, that he foresaw the inevitable extreme we all now take for granted every night on our TVs?
No, of course he doesn't. Nat Hiken died before this movie was released. The only other thing I can say, is do NOT judge this movie the way you judge other Don Knotts movies. I believe you will come away from viewing this movie thinking "This is the first movie starring Don Knotts which wasn't actually written with Knotts in mind."
Dead of Night (1974)
AT LAST!
Years ago, I had rented this movie one night and sat in stunned (well, stoned) horror watching what I remembered as a truly scary, creepy movie.
I have been waiting for this movie to become available for years, literally. So I was some kinda shocked to see 4 copies at my local video store, all for under 10 bucks! I couldn't wait to get this DVD home! It's the widescreen version, and includes an extended ending, an alternate beginning, and in my opinion, the best special feature, an interview with Tom Savini, the special makeup effects wizard from "Dawn of the Dead" (the 70s version)!
This movie had been known by many different names, but when I rented it years ago, it was "Deathdream".
The plot is pretty straightforward: A soldier named Andy is killed in action during the Vietnam War. His family back home receives the heartbreaking telegram, informing them their son Andy was Killed in Action. The mother goes into denial, the sister breaks down and dad is almost completely shocked. I say almost because the very next evening, Andy returns home, alive, which truly shocks them all. They're glad Andy's home, but it's obvious he's different; he doesn't eat, he doesn't sleep, he doesn't talk, he just goes around ripping the throats out of various people in town, starting with the nice trucker who gave him a lift home. Mom just continues to live in denial, refusing to believe her son is anything more or less than he was when he left to go to war, but dad begins to suspect something almost right away.
Long story short, Andy digs himself a grave and finally dies in it.
Even after all these years, the movie still has some punch in it. With the exception of the dad, I haven't seen anyone else who was in this movie in anything else. The Makeup effects are quite effective, especially if you're old enough to remember low budget movies before CGI. Again, notable if for no other reason than this was Tom Savini's first job. I'm glad this movie is out, I'm glad it was cheap, and I'm glad it's still so good after so many years.
Gojira tai Hedora (1971)
Bad? Sure. REAL bad? Nahhh
The thing you have to remember about the 70s Godzilla movies, they were produced to entertain KIDS. Children. So they HAD to make Godzilla a force for good, fighting whatever monster came along on behalf of Japan. The fact that most of the monsters Godzilla had to fight were usually created by those same people needing rescue is just symmetry. If you can keep in mind Japan couldnt make truly scary movies for kids, what you end up with is wrestling, just in more elaborate costumes than they use in the WWE. With all these limitations, it's a wonder a Godzilla movie of ANY quality is ever made. Of these 70s-era Godzillas, one of my favorites is Godzilla vs. The Smog Monster. With CGI these days, I would love to see a remake of this movie. The ecological subtext is as relevant today as it was 30 years ago, if not more so. Im surprised Godzilla hasnt been tasked to fight and destroy "OzonaLaythra", a monster born in ultraviolet light, or "EssYuVeethra", a HUGE monster which guzzles petroleum reserves. Maybe even "Cheneyathra, Monster with the Bionic Heart!". Can YOU come up with any more new ecological monsters Godzilla could fight?
O.C. and Stiggs (1985)
Poor but good moments
I am a huge fan of the original National Lampoon articles about O.C and Stiggs, and sadly, this movie captures little of the glory of those stories. Still, there are a few good moments, such as when King Sunny Ade and his African Beats are playing, and also when they show any exterior shot (the movie was filmed around Mesa and Phoenix, AZ). Also, I still remember the primal screams of "SCHWAAAAAAAAAB!!" when I think of this movie. The torture the Schwab family endures will most always bring a smile to my face. I think the biggest problems with this movie lie in the fact that the original O.C. and Stiggs articles were very 'out-there', some of the concepts were not P.C. for even then in the late 80s. One article related how they put a hayride together and made all the mentally challenged kids at one school ride in it, and how OC & S each got oral sex from one of the kids. This kinda storyline does not make a movie producer automatically start scrambling for the checkbook. So these non-PC (frankly, audience-scaring) ideas had to be 'toned down', to the point where the producers lost the core audience they were shooting for in the first place. Another area that needed work was the plot. It's pretty thin, even for this type of movie. The boys want King Sunny Ade to play a concert in town, so they do what they can to make it happen (Let's put on a bake sale!). That's it. As blah as this movie was, I still recommend it if only for the music. I can't wait until it finally comes out on DVD.