Reviews

This part concert film and part retrospective documentary is a treasure for Moody Blues fans. Released in 2009 it contains (at that time) contemporary interviews with Justin Hayward, Graeme Edge, John Lodge and Mike Pinder, who reflect on the massive concert and the changes in time since then. My writing about it here for Imdb is the passing of Mike Pinder this week. We lost a great man and artist and this concert is one of the only filmed concerts from his time in the band when they recorded the "Core 7" albums along with Ray Thomas, who was the only member not interviewed in 2009.

There is a nice background on the band starting with a brief history of the Moodies from their start as a blues-based band in 1964 to how they changed when Justin and John joined the band which is when Mike started playing the mellotron. The instrument has long been replaced with keyboards, samplers and digital programs, so seeing Mike demonstrate this pioneering instrument in his 2009 interview is educational for anyone interested. As Justin says, the mellotron helped give them an identity when they first used it.

The Isle of Wight festival was amazing. The Moodies were so big in August 1970 that they played on the last night and they were followed by Jethro Tull and by Jimi Hendrix, in his final concert before his untimely death. This was the biggest show the Moodies ever played - over 600,000 people attended. Graeme comically described it as if 10% of the audience booed, then that meant 60,000 people were upset with you! Not all of the songs performed were filmed, so what filmmaker Murray Lerner wisely does is to play the audio of those songs like, 'Are You Sitting Comfortably?' and 'Ride My See Saw' and he edits in cut-away shots of the band and uses narration from band members to describe the songs/experiences for these. What was filmed is spectacular. We see Ray and Mike emcee the show, introducing the songs which include, 'Gypsy', 'Tuesday Afternoon', 'Never Comes the Day', 'Tortoise and the Hare', 'Question', 'Sunset', 'Melancholy Man', 'Nights in White Satin', and 'Legend of a Mind'. For fans who only saw concerts after the 1970s, it is a wonderful opportunity to see Mike and Ray on their side of the stage, including the band's epic performance of 'Melancholy Man'. There are precious few performances of Mike singing his songs available to see today and this one is awesome! Seeing the band so young, especially now as three of the members have passed, is a treat and this concert and festival are of great historical importance in music history. As Justin says in an interview, the Isle of Wight came at the end of the period of innocence of the sixties. The festival was so gigantic and caused a bit of havoc locally, that ultimately this was the last truly gigantic festival of rock music from that legendary era. The band is simply terrific and locked in.

So, if you are a Moody Blues fan, you must own this and if you do own it, you need to watch it again sometime soon. Their talent, music of peace, philosophy, love and thoughtfulness shines through in an authentic, soul-enriching experience. Rest in peace, Mike Pinder.

WAGONS WESTWARD is another forgotten film from Hollywood's yesteryear. It was directed by Lew Landers, a true journeyman, who had very little directorial style. It's hard to even say he had any genuine classics despite the huge catalog of films he created (in 1942 alone, he directed 12 films!) But, at his best he delivered on well-written stories such as in THE ENCHANTED FOREST, FLIGHT FROM GLORY and BAD LANDS. Probably, his best film is THE RAVEN, but what elevates that film is primarily Bela Lugosi's performance. WAGONS WESTWARD is a standard B-western highlighted by a dual role from Chester Morris.

The story is about twin brothers, Tommy and David - Tommy is a hardened killer; David a man of goodness. In the prologue, their father is killed by Indians and he asks Hardtack, well-played by Gabby Hayes, to look after the troublesome Tommy. Years later their mother is ill and the wanted Tommy reluctantly comes home to see her, only to be arrested as David tipped off the authorities of his return. To help catch the criminals Tommy is involved with, David agrees to go undercover and acts as his brother Tommy to infiltrate the gang and get the bad guys while dealing with the women (a pair of sisters) in his brother's life.

The copy I viewed was only 52 minutes. IMDb lists it at 69 minutes and there is definitely the feeling of scenes missing, so I'm not sure if there is a complete version out there. There are a few nice split-screen shots of Morris playing off of himself in both roles. Morris is terrific. Tommy is aggressive, even against his mother and Hardtack. He plays David as reasonable, humble and courageous. Morris, in a way, has a third performance in that as David, he has to act as Tommy; being bad and dangerous like his brother, but with some of David's hesitation. Gabby Hayes' Hardtack is interested in getting new teeth and has a great line, "teeth is a wonderful invention" as he dreams of purchasing a set of false teeth he saw in an advertisement. Ona Munson also has a few nice scenes as Julie, the sharper of the two sisters involved with Tommy. In the end, though, this film is standard B material and the final showdown between Tommy and David has no dialogue and is poorly handled with no flair.

This seems to be the last Indiana Jones film with Harrison Ford. I certainly hope they do not make another, even with another actor. Indiana Jones was created in the late 1970s as a homage to movie serials of the 1930s. This character, therefore, is tremendously out of place in the 2020s. No one living today really remembers the 30s and the 1980s were a very long time ago now. James Mangold, however, has succeeded in giving the movie serials of yesteryear a fitting "Goodbye" with this film.

The core theme in Dial of Destiny is about what happens when you get to the end of life and I think the somewhat depressing nature of that reality is why the film hasn't done what was expected at the box office. Younger audiences not embracing it is not surprising - they want something fresh and new. The last Indiana Jones film came out in 2008 and you need to be at least in your 20s to remember seeing that in the theater. When you combine that with the mystifying fact that Disney has owned this character for 10 years and done absolutely nothing to promote it (Disney never even bothered putting it on Disney + all these years until now!!) makes it easy to see why only fans who watched these films in the 1980s were the ones who primarily saw Dial of Destiny in the theater. I don't think most people under 20 give a thought as to who Indiana Jones is. It's going to make about $400 million and when you stop and think that any film with an 80 year-old lead can do that, it's pretty amazing honestly. Why did Disney think a franchise with no new material in 15 years and with an 80 year-old lead could do a billion?!?!

Indiana Jones, the character, is out of his element in 1969. American culture has completely changed from his heyday in the 1930s. Harrison Ford plays a lonelier version of the adventurous character. He is not a family man and never settled down, so we see him at the end of his job as a professor and retiring to his small apartment in New York City with no real plan for what to do with his remaining time. This is when adventure comes to find him one more time.

His goddaughter, with unknown motives, tracks him down during one of his final classes and is looking for the Antikythera mechanism, a real artifact discovered in 1902 off the namesake Greek Island. It's entire purpose and design are still a mystery and the film goes big on this. I won't spoil it, but the "magical power" of this device gives the Indiana Jones character an opportunity for a poetically appropriate finale. Indiana Jones has always been a passionate student about history. I was very happy to see him embrace this passion in a way he never could in the previous films. Mangold succeeds in delivering a final story arc for Indiana Jones.

There is a good deal of action, but really 3 main set pieces - the train scene of 1944; the horse chase in NYC and then the chase in Morocco. Other moments rely more on suspense than action and this is a smart and logical way to deal with Indiana Jones, who is supposed to be about 70 years-old in this film. Ford is simply terrific in his iconic role. He nails the emotions of this character without the nostalgia or self-pity that would be so easy to instill. It was nice to see John Rhys-Davies and Karen Allen have solid moments of support. The other actors were all excellent with Mads Mikkelsen making a terrifically deplorable villain, who has a major bone to pick with Nazi history.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is far from perfect, but it's a terrific closer for Indiana Jones. Disney is who failed this film. Indiana Jones should have been promoted by them for many years and the budget was simply bloated. The cast and crew should be proud of the film. The filmmakers honored Indiana Jones, the original vision of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg and the serials that inspired them as children.

I have a feeling this film will gather admiration with time. As age and reflection on life are the main themes and as we all get older, more and more audiences will identify with what Indiana Jones has to go through in the film. Thank you, Harrison Ford, and Thank you, John Williams, for everything.

This is a film that asks the question - if you were to be lost, alone for years in the North Pole, would you degenerate into an animal? "Yes", the film literally answers as Captain Ramper (played by Paul Wegener) grows so much hair he looks like a Yeti.

I won't get too much into analyzing the film as it is incomplete and in pretty poor shape. What exists was posted on Youtube under its German title - Ramper der Tiermensch - by one of the authors (Henry Nicolella) of Paul Wegener's biography, 'Many Selves' and I can't recommend the book enough. If you are interested in Wegener or this film, the book covers his life in worthy detail.

For Horror fans, Max Schreck is in the film, albeit in a small role as one of the crew of the ship in the beginning. We are given the theory of the dormant gland, which apparently is what causes Ramper to devolve from a human being into a "beast man". (It was all glands in these horror films in the 20s and 30s, wasn't it?)

The first half of the footage mostly takes place in the north pole, where Ramper's plane crashed and a whaling crew many years later discovers an abominable "Beast Man". They capture him, bring him home and sell him to a circus sideshow man named Jim Chocolat (Kurt Gerron). His sister, Tony (Mary Johnson) is able to communicate with the beast Ramper - show-billed as Teddy the Ape Man - and he is horrified by the world. When a science team finds him and wants to try out their "gland theory", they awaken the man who has been dormant in Ramper's body all those years.

Through a nice montage that includes a propellor rotating, Ramper is able to make the connections in his mind that make him remember he is a man. Yet when he is free, he (in a superimposition) sees a girl that causes him to wander off. He breaks a leg off the table and smashes out of the doctor's control. As he remembers his old life, he tries to find his mother, but her home is now abandoned in the 15 years he has been gone.

The second half of the surviving film gets more cinematic - montages/superimpositions/effects and has a somewhat faster pace. It's unclear how much of the surviving 50 minutes is even properly in order. Clearly there is a reel or two lost at the end, so there is no conclusion we can see. I will not spoil it to say that the man, Ramper, in the lost footage joins the crew that found him and sails back to the arctic, hoping to find the peace he had as a beast, away from the harsh world of mankind.

If you are a fan of Paul Wegener you should definitely see what's left of this. What exists shows a sympathetic performance from Wegener, who I think should be coined, "The Grandfather of Horror".

Three Godfathers is a wonderful little (for MGM) film that keeps its' story simple and to the heart. Three bank robbers find a woman dying in the desert and as she dies they decide to save her baby to the risk of their own lives. This is also the third of four versions of this story; with each filmed over a 32 year span with each film well-documenting the growth of the quality of filmmaking technology and technique in that era. The 1916 silent version, which is lost, demonstrates the early years of 3 act narrative film storytelling. The 1929 version shows the then-brand new sound technology; this 1936 film illustrates sound production entering its' prime years with a musical score and more fluid camera work and the 1948 version shows off color photography, which was starting to become the norm for the industry going into the 1950s. It can be said this story, based on a book, is a true stalwart of old-Hollywood and I would argue it would be welcomed to a remake in the 21st Century.

The actors and simple, but impactful direction make the film. Richard Boleslawski, who would sadly die a year later, directs with an abundant use of close-ups for that time. This lets the actors have their moments, and they come through in spades. Chester Morris is the lead and the least moral of the bank robbers. He plays Bob, a man angered by the people in the town, whose bank he is robbing. He is motivated to get back at the town which despises him and the girl who refused him, Molly (Irene Hervey), and he leads the robbery, shooting her new fiancé on his way out of the robbery. He isn't a very sympathetic character until the second half when he must decide what he will do with the helpless baby. Morris is interesting to watch and the depths of depravity in his character are well-played when he tries to pray as he has to face his fate in the end. Lewis Stone is simply outstanding as Doc, an old man who knows his time is short and quickly decides the money he got in the robbery isn't worth a thing compared to the life of the child. He takes on the full responsibility as long as he can and you can read in the melancholy in Stone's acting how his character is at peace with his fate when he looks into the baby's face. Walter Brennan, too, is excellent, as the simple-minded Gus, a middle-aged man, who is good friends with Doc and believes in him and takes on the responsibility too, of feeding and caring for the child at the expense of his own life.

This could be certainly called sentimental, and it is, but the story is so simple, that the sentimentality naturally comes out of it. Any human being with an ounce of morality, who would come upon a helpless baby, would do anything to save it. It's a part of our nature. What is great about this film is watching how each character faces the circumstances he is in and how he reacts to the constantly dangerous scenario of running out of water and being too far from safety in the scorching desert and the sacrifices they have to make with such limitations. The story takes place at Christmas, which makes the three main characters' redemption a religious allegory as they save the child, valuing the promise of an innocent over themselves. Doc's philosophical nature also lends this film to being much more thoughtful than your average western. The mixing of the brutality of the old west, with religion and philosophy give this a heartening feeling. Highly recommended to fans of simple, effective and emotional storytelling.

Universal made 3 versions of this story from 1933 to 1944. Each one was weaker than the previous. Most interesting, though, is this and a 1932 original German version of the story were made immediately before the 1933 film. It may be the best version as it has much more of a shadowy-European feel than any of the future versions. This film may break a record as having the most figures of knight armor in a film. The hallways and the blue room are loaded with them.

Most shocking for me, like many who know the 1933 Lionel Atwill version is that the Atwill film is nearly a shot-for-shot remake of this film. If you have seen the Universal version you don't need a translator as the scenes and dialogue are identical right up to the butler shutting the doors on the audience in the finale. There's even the long tracking shot of when the police inspector questions the maid as to who she saw outside the night before and the camera ends up on Van Heldorf. Without subtitles, it's hard not to compare the film as you watch it. Some low and high angle camerawork and angular and arched scenery make this more atmospheric than its American counterpart. The American version seems flatly lit and boringly decorated in comparison. That being said the American one is a favorite horror/whodunit of mine and it's a little disappointing to see it is ultimately an unoriginal film.

Acting-wise, the film is solid. The actor who plays the inspector is quite demonstrative. The lead actress seems to underplay a bit. It's hard to get more out of acting when you can't understand the words unlike when watching a silent film when you're only input is visual. This film today is a curio and an example of the basic storytelling being done in other parts of the world when all we think of was that Hollywood was the beginning, middle and end of filmmaking.

Return of the Terror is one of those odd titles that classic horror fans have heard about for years and yet know little about. Upon release there was a great promotional poster of a fang-toothed villain, which promises twisted, evil horror. As the previous reviewer noted, he doesn't appear. There's also the promise that this is a sequel to the first sound horror film, THE TERROR (1928), based on a story by the always-reliable Edgar Wallace. This isn't a sequel, so that promise has been dashed as well.

So many classic horror films shamefully insinuate these kinds of promises that ultimately are never delivered that I find it all very forgivable. After all, there's really not even a moment in THE BLACK CAT (1934) that has anything to do with Poe. And THE RETURN OF DR. X (1939) seemed to insult that Lionel Atwill's DOCTOR X (1932) ever existed.

With that stripped out of the way, I found myself very much enjoying this movie. It's pure B-film escapism. It's more of a mystery than a horror film, but there are horror elements there. I think this film breaks some sort of record for most teeming rainfall of any 1930s film. The lightning storm lasts over 3 reels and creates a great chaotic environment. There's a very cool "fluor x- ray" machine that makes one's skin invisible so only the bones of the body are visible. The electrical machinery zaps just like in DOCTOR X, another Warner Brothers film. If you like skeleton imagery, this will be right up your alley. There's also plenty of suspects skulking around in black raincoats and large-brimmed hats and a knife-wielding crazy person. Most of all, the film has a nice steady pace. It's not a directorial masterpiece by any standards, but it moves.

The plot involves a doctor (John Halliday) who is tried for murder for assisting in the deaths of terminally ill patients who requested for his assistance. However, separate deaths via arsenic-poisoning are pinned on him thanks to a shady morgue aide (J. Carroll Naish). Dr. Redmayne's lawyer (Irving Pichel) arranges for him to plead insanity to avoid the death penalty and the doctor is put away in a sanitarium. When he finds out he will not be able to appeal, he escapes and is on the loose, returning to Morgan Rest Home where his colleague (Lyle Talbot) and fiancé (Mary Astor) are. However, with the storm, and several dubious mental patients (Robert Barrat, George E. Stone) arriving also, he remains on the run. When deaths of people he's associated with occur (with notes signed "The Terror" – his nickname for the Kevorkian-like assisted killings), everyone is out to find him, but is he the real killer?

The acting is solid throughout. Robert Barrat is a real chameleon. Hard to believe this is the same guy in SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM (1933) and BAD LANDS (1939). I love how his character always has to have a cigarette, even in the pouring rain. Frank McHugh finally gets more to do than just wisecrack. He joins in with the Inspector and helps solve the case. It's refreshing to not see him joke on every single line he has as he did in many similar films. John Halliday is terrific too. The scene when he is knocked over the head in the basement is a wonderful scene. The director, Howard Bretherton, wisely tracks the camera over to the flooding water coming in the window, giving the scene suspense and sorrow – the best moment in the film. There's nice simple tracking shots that show the story well, such as the opening outside the courthouse. In my opinion the film has a great surprise ending; certainly for a Warner B-movie. John Milne had written KENNEL MURDER CASE (1933) a year earlier.

Some interesting tidbits – Maude Eburne plays Mrs. Elvery, a character in Wallace's original play. Arthur L. Todd later shot the film THE SMILING GHOST (1941). In it the "ghost" looks incredibly similar to the sharp-toothed villain in the promotional poster. Did he recall his work on this film??? The film's opening title is also classically spooky, showing a similar silhouetted figure prominently hovering over some dead trees; his cape blowing in the howling wind. George E. Stone gets to be called "runt" near the end, which is a funny premonition of his Boston Blackie days.

This isn't a lost classic – it was never considered great when it came out. It's easily a cut above poverty row B-films and is at least as entertaining as the average mystery-horror from the time period.

This rarely-seen 1933 mystery film definitely toes the line on classifying as horror. If you think early 30s films such Double Door, The Ninth Guest, and Six Hours to Live fall into the category, you will agree this belongs. Tending to be liberal with the horror label, I would throw it in too.

As some readers may remember, TCM teased us by listing it on its schedule and abruptly removing it a few years back. I saw the print that was digitized at the Library of Congress. It runs 70 minutes and despite digital glitches in viewing it on one of their computer screens, it was a solid digitized print.

The film has, as you would expect, excellent atmosphere. Only the final scene is devoid of fog. The art deco sets are wonderful (cabins of passengers seem to be tailored to the eccentricities of its guests). There's a brief, but gruesome shot of a victim hanging by a noose; a standard 30s séance; the constant blare of a foghorn; and of course, some nice low-key lighting. The film is devoid of a musical score, has lots of fade outs to end scenes and overall has a grim and somewhat distanced feel to the viewer. There's no one to really root for in this film.

For those of you who follow 20s, 30s and 40s mystery films, I often find what I call the "2 Real Suspect" films. You often see the many obvious recurring red-herrings such as ex-cons hiding behind aliases, jealous ex-husbands and ex-wives and suspicious-acting servants. This film has all of them and after discarding these stereotypical characters, there are really only two viable suspects and they are the two male leads in this one. As they both need to look suspicious, we really don't have that "go to" lead that this type of film does better with. The audience doesn't identify with either man.

As the leads are dry and distant and as there is no character development in these genre films, FOG suffers when compared to better contemporary films. That being said, there is still much to recommend. Samuel S. Hinds is terrific in an atypical servant role in which he summons some genuine pathos. The cinematography by long-time Hollywood veteran Benjamin Kline is excellent. There's terrific use of close-ups and medium close-ups throughout. The ship setting also lends itself to a nice claustrophobic feel complemented by all that engulfing fog.

The plot is straightforward. An old, rich, mid-western oil tycoon (Robert McWade) has a lot of bad relationships. His treats his two aides poorly, is hounded by a semi-phony mystic (nicely overplayed by Helen Freeman), and has an unknown long-lost son who may become the heir to his fortune. They are all on board a cross-Atlantic sea voyage. Naturally, the old man is the murder victim, and after his death, the ship's captain (the always fine, Edwin Maxwell) and Brown (Donald Cook) take over and begin investigating all the suspects. Madame Alva (Freeman) is called in to hold a séance (with the entirety of the ship's passengers attending!) and..well, when the lights go out..take a guess what happens next.

There's a rumor that there's a ghost in this film - there isn't. At the end, they try to summon the "ghost" of Holt (the murdered oil tycoon), but there is nothing supernatural about this moment. FOG has tons and tons of fog and this is an asset. Completists of 30s horror/mysteries will want to check it out.

This film is the tenth and last of the Crime Doctor films that I've tracked down. It's the hardest to see for reasons I don't know. The other films have screened on TCM over the past few years since TCM picked up the old Columbia catalog, but this one stubbornly refuses to show up.

Well, I'm glad to say Dr. Ordway saved the best for last for me. The film's generic-sounding title is a little off-putting. It has plenty of shadows and in fact, even has a little bit of a horror film feel in a few moments. That's helped out by the presence of George Zucco, most welcome here as a mysterious chemist. Warner Baxter is terrific in his role as the Crime Doctor. I used to not like him so much based on some of his early films that I had seen, but he has totally won me over as Dr. Ordway. His extremely calm and unassuming manner is always relaxing to see and in this one (the third out of ten) he clearly has his character down and is able to get away with a few rather rude moments (such as throwing the chemical bottle at Zucco's feet) with barely a rise out of the other characters due to his otherwise professional demeanor.

The plot is very exciting in this entry - a young woman comes to Ordway's home in the middle of a rain-stormy night to beg for his help with her sleepwalking nightmares. At her home, Ordway encounters a dead body after suffering a similar such sleepwalking nightmare. Yet, all of the characters, including the young woman (an excellent Nina Foch) think their friend died of natural causes. Ordway's persistence proves otherwise.

As usual with classic Hollywood detective films there are always some plot holes, but this film easily overcomes them by succeeding with terrific atmosphere, steady pacing and by simply being a fun whodunit. Cheers to Dr. Ordway!

Just caught up with it after 25 years and while this is not a classic, this is not a bad movie. I saw this when it first came on video and remember enjoying it and feeling it was a solid action flick for Patrick Swayze. I am very surprised all these years later after seeing it today on TV, that it still is, though I would only recommend it to people who like old movies and/or post-apocalyptic stories.

First of all, it was nice to see Patrick Swayze and his wife, Lisa Niemi paired together on screen. They had a tremendous relationship in real life; one of the only Hollywood couples to whom "till death do us part" really meant something. They clearly have an easy demeanor around one another that makes their scenes memorable. Most of all what's good about this movie and similar old flicks made on clearly-low-budgets is the lack of pretense. It's not trying to be flashy, it's not trying to be epic, nor is it trying to be something it's not. This is just a simple tale of a wanderer (Swayze) who comes upon a tiny village and learns to help the people in exchange for food, water and a bed and comes to defend them from marauders. Nothing more. His character, called "The Stranger" in the film, becomes a man of example, whose actions speak louder than words and who shows us how we can trust someone based on how they act and not what they say. Swayze has charisma and that's what makes it better than average for this type of old film. He was such a good dancer we forget he had some action chops as well. NEXT OF KIN, and ROAD HOUSE were made after this, along with POINT BREAK, and are better known. This is a quiet flick, a good one to watch on a lazy weekend afternoon.

The direction and music score are a little dated, as is Niemi's hairstyle (very popular in the '86-'87 years). The acting is okay overall, though Anthony Zerbe always makes a good villain. Mostly the excellent fight scenes keep the film moving forward. The choreography of the action is very good and Swayze truly has the grace of a dancer in his hand-to-hand combat. STEEL DAWN holds up as a nice reminder of simple, unpretentious 1980s storytelling.

After the prologue, the film begins with Lois jumping out the window to bait Clark into giving away his secret - while improbable, it's a bold way to start the film. It seems to be saying, "forget about the origin story; let's jump right into the action", however this isn't followed with enough of a storyline for the two of them. She and Reeve have just over 13 total minutes of screen time (I counted) by the time they are in bed together. We don't get to see their romance bloom at Niagra Falls. The blank bullets scene is the only other moment they really have. It's too quick to digest for the audience. They're our main characters and simply said, we need much more of 'em.

Marlon Brando has one of the films' two epic scenes when he gives up his "life" to restore his son's powers. It's a very moving scene and also a great character building moment for Superman. He learns his selfish needs denied him a life of giving and sharing his special gifts with the world. Some have complained that Reeve didn't act as well in this version - I disagree. The original intention of Superman's character in this film was to focus on his immaturity, selfishness and need for personal gratification. Reeve acts this way because in Part One he was initially trying to become a man. Here, he gives into his personal wants and needs. However, his decision is a mistake and he has to suffer losing his father as a result. This is powerful stuff and Reeve acts the character out in this story arc and is excellent.

Gene Hackman gets top billing and is interesting and humorous, but there isn't much weight to him as a villain and luckily General Zod, Ursa and Non are there to provide the muscle and madness that make Superman realize what a mistake he has made. If there is a weakness in the supervillains it's that they aren't given enough to do. The battle in Metropolis is the other epic scene and the lack of humor and the constant action make it the most exciting part of the movie.

However, the ending of Superman turning back time is an incomprehensible mistake by any standard. It begs the question, "Why didn't Superman just turn back time to get rid of Zod once Jor-El restored his powers?" The fact that this ending was used in part one only makes it worse. The idea that Superman can always turn back time is a poor one that makes the character too good to be true. He cannot have such unbelievable power; it takes away from the drama and conflict of him understanding a better way to use his power to save people.

Good moments - the villains destroying the Washington monument on their way to the White house. There's a nice, eerie moment when Superman is about to give up his powers when he flies in his civilian clothes for the only time. The Statue of Liberty getting crashed into during the Metropolis battle is a great iconic moment. A big film needs big icons like Lady Liberty in it. Ursa gets a great moment in the White House where she gets to enjoy her fatal kick of a White House guard, teasing him before she delivers the deed. It's another great icy moment for the "Queen of the Runway" as Perry White calls her. Zod also has some great lines such as an old-west type of line when he gets to the fortress, yelling, "Show yourself, coward!" And despite her lack of screen time, Margot Kidder gets a wonderful ending atop her penthouse when, in tears, she tells Superman, "Your secret's safe with me."

Some poor moments include Ms. Teshmacher flushing a toilet in the fortress of Solitude. This is simply ugly and stupid. The music score is a mess. There is no way John Williams would approve of his Superman: The Movie score being used in such a choppy and repetitive way. The score seems like what it is – about 20-30 minutes of original music being spread over 110 minutes. The color holographic image of Jor-El that Lex sees, should have been in black and white as it was in the first film. The initial use of a color image of Jor-El should have been saved for when he walks up and touches his son for the only time as this would have added to the dramatic impact of the re-powering scene. Superman should have gone to bed with Lois after de-powering. It seems like he gives up his powers for nothing. And there is an inexcusable audio blip when Superman tells Zod in an extremely high-pitched munchkin voice, "I'm not a coward Zod."

Overall at one hour fifty - ten minutes of which are flashbacks - this is just too short for the epic story this was supposed to be. It needs to be around a half hour longer to build character for Ursa, Zod, Lois and Superman. Lex, if anything, has too much screen time and too much repetitive humor. I know the film was made with restraints and was never intended to be perfect, so it gives us an idea of what a 1979 Richard Donner- directed Superman II would have looked like. I honestly think about 50% of what we see here would have been changed had he finished the film in '79 such as much more footage shot of the developing romance between Lois and Clark, more development and certainly more destruction from Zod and Ursa, and without a doubt – a completely different ending than we see here. We'll never know, but seeing Brando's and Reeve's work now that they are no longer with us is special and it's satisfying even if just for that emotional re-powering scene between them.

First, let me get out of the way, the unfortunate need to explain the "see it because it's good for you" thoughts I'm sure many people will get when hearing about "Red Tails" and its story. Is the film sentimental? Yes. Does it tell rather than show the tragic racial separation that existed in 1944? Yes. Is it optimistic and corny? Yes, again. So stop right here if you don't want any of this in a movie.

"Red Tails" is definitely old-fashioned Americana, but with the ironic twist that it is the people who were segregated at that time, who get the "1940s-styled Hollywood" treatment. Black soldiers who fought in WWII could go to a theater at that time and see John Wayne and other white actors tell the white WWII stories, but could not see their own sacrifices represented with that same pro-American bias. This is in some ways the 1940s film that they never got from Hollywood. (Ironically, they still haven't gotten it as Lucas, not Hollywood, bankrolled "Red Tails" independently).

Today's cynical audiences will not like this. Characters are basically who they seem they are. The same criticism was brought up against "Saving Private Ryan" when that came out. Like "Ryan", here we get the stereotypical group of different personalities among the soldiers. There is a character in this named 'Joker' as there seems to be in every war movie. There's also a guy called "Junior", etc. Spielberg used the sentimental trick of showing the old Ryan at the cemetery adjoined by the next shot of the young Hanks' character to play up the sadness you will feel for him in the end. (Let me add, "Ryan" is a certainly a better film than "Red Tails" mainly due to direction).

"Red Tails" weaknesses are some unimaginative editing/directing that results in some odd-feeling dissolves between scenes. I noticed this early in the film and it has a bit of a "tv movie" feel to it in that sense. Better planning by the director would have anticipated the camera's move and the direction of the forms within the image from one scene into the next. So, a more up-scale, Hollywood flashy directing is missing, but if you overcome that early on and accept it, the film is entirely consistent thereafter. The music score is very good, but a little over done in a few parts. There are a few private scenes early in the film where two characters talk in isolation that could have done without the heavy music.

Strengths include the fantastic direction and editing of the aerial sequences. You can really get a good sense of how their missions were and the close calls, quick moves and even the straightforward ordinary flying the pilots must have experienced. The actors are good and uniformly old-fashioned. But after all, we are talking about an America of 68 years ago. The lingo may seem corny, but I have never met a person who lived in that era who didn't sound corny to me. The actors definitely seem like they believe in something and that they are having fun playing these pilots. The pilots in real life were supposedly a very confident and cocky bunch. The care they have for one another is an asset. As you get to know them you get to care about them and root for them in battle and it gives more feeling to the entertaining battle sequences.

There are some excellent technical decisions such as not to subtitle the character of Sofia. This definitely lets the audience identify with Lightning in how he must overcome the communication barrier between the two. Both she and David Oyelowo as Lightning do an excellent job of expressing their feelings with their faces and bodies as they slowly fall in love. The film shows the narrow-minded thinking you must embrace to be in war. Germans, who are not really seen much, are obvious enemies saying only lines like "Show no Mercy!" In battle, though, do you really have time to be a conflicted person when you are about to fight to the death? And do people really need a conflicted Nazi in a Tuskegee airman story?

The heroes in this movie are just that – Heroes and not anti-heroes. This is an important distinction because we are not a society that looks at things like that anymore. Every hero must have his or her dark side. "Red Tails" shows character flaws, such as Easy's drinking and Lightning's show-boating, but it doesn't hearken on them or analyze them at all. It seems every single film today gives us "Look at me - I'm the anti-hero because I'm too scared to believe in anything, but I really do care - I'm just cynical" characters. I think we want people we can believe in. It's refreshing to see a good person be a good person for a change. And I don't have to be spoon fed unrealistic, over-hyper plot twists every five minutes to be impressed. This movie stands out from the crowd for those facts alone. Life isn't always a series of dark twists; sometimes it's exactly as it appears.

The Tuskegee airmen were heroes, plain and simple. Maybe, besides the color of their skin, the reason few have really heard of them till now is because they were simply doing their jobs and doing it very well. And the job they did in the air in WWII was very exciting. Final analysis - Does the film make you feel good and proud of these men? Yes. It's as simple as that.

Having not seen this film for about 23 years, I feel a need to say something about this unfairly notorious film. All I remembered was how hot Lea Thompson and her trendy hair were at the time and the talking duck. Well, HOWARD THE DUCK is no classic but definitely worth the time for people who like unusual and original ideas. It's quirky, odd and a true amalgamation of ideas that equally work and don't work. And Lea Thompson still looks hot, though her hair in this film was truly a 1986 thing.

Having just viewed the DVD, I must say I have to hand it to the technical work on the film. For 1986, the animatronic duck looks as good as anything done up till that time. The actor inside the duck did a good job of hitting his marks and the bill and the eyes were skillfully done. It's just that there isn't a great appeal to this character to begin with. He's basically a middle class guy with an attitude on his duck planet and comes off just like that type of person from our planet. They could have either gone farther with his attitude and dirty talk or totally backed off and made it more child-friendly.

The same goes for the bizarre match of music. If film songs could tell you the exact style that was in for the mid-eighties, this film reeks of it. Unfortunately the songs are all mediocre and they are blended with a wonderful, but completely out-of-place John Barry score. Barry's scores on the James Bond films were great and he had a level of sophistication and adventure that few composers had then. His love theme in HOWARD THE DUCK is simply touching. Considering the subject manner, in retrospect Danny Elfman would have been a far better choice for the score (heck, his band Oingo Boingo could have done a few songs as well).

The Production Design also needs to be commended - this is really a 'B' film made with 'A' money. The special effects are mostly good. The scene where Jeffrey Jones is in the diner is perfect for the time period, but the creature version of the Dark Overlord at the end is lit incorrectly and doesn't match the rest of the real background. You can tell all of the actors worked hard. Lea Thompson did her own singing and always has a nice sensitive side. Jones is great in what amounts to two roles - the competent scientist and the Dark Overlord. And a young Tim Robbins really chews up the scenery and you can see how much talent this guy really has playing a geeky and silly character - a character we would no longer see from him in future films.

The most interesting thing to me looking back now is it really says a lot about the time it was made and yet it was rejected by the people in that time. I think the duck's condom and the "love" scenes definitely made people uncomfortable for a PG film. The idea of following a duck-man around for two hours in a sci-fi/noir also seems so contrived that it took a huge risk thinking millions of ticket buyers will latch onto it. The film seems to have basically ended the careers of Director/Writer Willard Hyuck and writer Gloria Katz that they have no other big credits after this. Lea Thompson, who was the star, was unable to rise higher despite having a still successful career. Jones, having come off AMADEUS and FERRIS BUELLER wasn't totally knocked down by it, and Tim Robbins actually was lucky he was unknown and a few years later got BULL DURHAM and carved a new path for himself.

HOWARD THE DUCK is a true time capsule of a film. It is entertaining, it has a heart and it isn't like any other movie you'll see from 1986. If you appreciate good, hard film-work and can forgive the weak story and the not-completely realized concept, it's quite a curious time period piece now. And, on a side note, I have to wonder what Tim Burton could have done with this at that time as it was between his wonderfully imaginative PEE WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE and the visually stunning BEETLEJUICE.

This film, as many did at the time, had a title change upon arriving on the US shores. It was re-tilted "The Living Dead". The original British title barely wins in a squeaker as the better one and neither is really apt. There is no mystery in this film. The criminal mastermind is revealed within the first ten minutes and it then operates as a suspense picture, and not a bad one.

Sir Gerald du Maurier in one of his few film appearances is the Commissioner and George Curzon is the criminal mastermind, using a job as a police doctor to get inside information on an insurance scam he is running. It is similar in ways to "Dark Eyes of London", the Edgar Wallace tale that followed to the screen five year later. Curzon's doctor has developed a serum that puts people in a death-like state. Once "dead", they can collect their life insurance money and he gets his share. There are plenty of plot holes that are left untied at the end, but it is an entertaining film with a few horror overtones to somewhat justify the horror-inspired title it had in the US.

Du Maurier is quite good in his role. It is said his performance of Captain Hook on the British stage is what inspired a very young Boris Karloff to become an actor. It is easy to see why. Du Maurier has a very reserved style and gives the best performance in the picture. Right behind him is Curzon as a very sinister villain who seems to be able to look at himself in the third person as he very elaborately tries to escape in the end. The pace and camera-work are good and this is entertaining for fans of this era's suspense films. If you're looking for horror you might be a bit disappointed - there are only two brief graveyard sequences.