Reviews

In absolute. I'm stating right here and now that this is the best single episode of any tv series or miniseries this year. JLCurtis is a lock for a guest star Emmy in addition to her Oscar. When attempting to describe this episode words like unrelenting, powerful, shocking come to mind it is a rollercoaster ride that just keeps going up and up and up until you can't take it any more.

I don't know how this was written or when, but I'm guessing it was the nucleus idea of the whole show. I can't say enough good about it. I will say that sitting down to the Berzatto Family Christmas reminds me of those beach goers who watch the water mysteriously recede from the beach just before a tidal wave. They know what's going to happen, but they can't tear their eyes away.

This one-set Indy tries very hard to be sharp and mordant and timely. The trouble is that nothing about the characters or their situations rings true. The main set is an ice cream truck located in what looks like a borderline ghetto where the heroine must give away free samples of chocolate and vanilla, nothing else. The workers and everyone in the neighborhood seem to already know that the pseudo ice cream is horrible. So what are they really doing there? In what alternate universe would this actually happen?

Apparently in the same universe where a self-absorbed Cali-blonde Stanford law student would be SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say, to learn that 5 years after she left home, her dad moved out and took up with a trophy bimbo. That evidently never happens in alternate universe Z, so of course it sends our heroine into a drunken tailspin where she must engage in contrived sardonic banter with every unlikely walk-on character who ambles by her pseudo ice cream truck. Sadly, none of these encounters feels more forced or contrived than the heroine's confrontation with her unwanted fiancée.

After 90 minutes of this I yearned to get back to our universe where Cheech and Chong would have a very good business plan for that ice cream truck working the ghetto and where all their customers' curious demands for "stamps" would make sense.

This technicolor feast isn't much more than a soap for men, but especially lamentable are the continuity problems director Ray had with anything military. He clearly doesn't know a Hellcat from the Hindenburg as his aerial sequences at Guadalcanal feature badly matched combat footage from Europe (look for the Thunderbolts) in front of live action cockpits of Marines flying Hellcats and Japanese flying Hellcats painted a different color. Other shots do throw in a few Texans subbing for Zeroes (a pleasant improvement) but all the shots jump around so much and are so unrealistic that the overall effect is disorienting and more than a little dishonorable to the brave lads who survived the Canal.

As another LDS viewer, I also like the film and find its hollywoodization of facts far less disturbing than say those of Stone's JFK. That said, I feel inclined to re-correct three facts that another LDS viewer pointed out. 1) While Joseph Smith was falsely imprisoned many times during his life, at the time of his murder he was under arrest, pending trial, for an offense he DID commit -- namely his ordering the destruction of the press of an opposition newspaper in Nauvoo. 2) While the slender 2/3rds majority of Nauvoo mormons did side with Brigham after Joseph's murder, roughly a third did not and scattered to the winds. And the issue of succession was by no means decided upon Joseph's death. It was nip and tuck, with several contenders vying for the crown, until Brigham's legendary 'immaculate impersonation' speech at conference. 3) I thought Vincent Price's portrayal of Joseph Smith was pretty good -- charismatic and visionary, somewhat other-worldly, but what do you expect.

Recently I decided to rent all of the AFI's top 100 movies that I'd never seen. To my surprise, only three were missing. Birth of a Nation, Some Like it Hot and Sunset Blvd. Of the three, I found that two were still great and this is one of them. (BoaN was the clunker, in my opinion). As timely today as it ever was, all of the archetypes presented ring true and could be cut from today's cloth as well as the vintage vicuna of Gigolo Joe's overcoat. The dialogue sparkles, the acting impresses, the direction stands out (some tracking shots are among the best ever committed to celluloid). Often imitated, never surpassed, it's as good as its hype. Don't miss.

I plowed through the most recent 5 user reviews of this movie, burrowing past the recitations of historical minutiae and the quibbles about its 50 year old (un)special effects, and thought to myself that everyone missed the point.

Yes, the effects are crude -- the film was made in 19-fricking-54, people! Yes, it gets some of the historical details wrong -- it's entertainment, people! The real point is that it's a fantastic yarn, told with great skill and excitement. When I first saw it (as a teen, before Star Wars) I was glued to the screen. I still am today. And evidently, I'm not alone because in 1977 a certain geeky film maker from Northern California stole a large portion of Dam Busters, mixed in a heapin' helpin' of Hidden Fortress, and peppered it all with a dash of Laurel & Hardy & Flash Gordon, calling it Star Wars.

So I'm giving props where props are due. Don't miss this classic.

After seeing this remake and reading most of the user comments, I thought it peculiar that no one directly referenced the classic Italian comedy that inspired it. By 'inspired' I mean 'every single scene and character take from except all the funny bits'. The movie I'm talking about is not 'Crackers' the lame 80's remake starring Penn and Sutherland, I'm talking about 'Big Deal on Madonna Street' with Gassman, Mastroianni, Claudia Cardinale and Toto. It's Italian name is 'I Soliti Ignoti' which translates as 'The Usual Suspects', a more literal name which fits so well, I wondered why they never used it.

The reason why I bring up the Italian original is just that it's so screamingly funny, even if you don't speak Italian. Welcome to Collingwood is mildly amusing, but 'Big Deal' is probably the funniest Italian movie ever made. Comparing the two is a bit like comparing A Night at the Opera to A Night at the Roxbury. The difference is evident in every scene, every line of dialogue, every performance. Toto is magnificent, his funniest movie, and he makes you wonder why they made poor Michael Jeter take his part and give him nothing to do in it.

Then there is the last scene of the movie, or rather the last scene of the heist. It is the knee-slapper of all knee-slappers and when I first saw it, it yanked out of me the biggest single laugh of my laugh. A 'Something About Mary' hair gel kind of laugh. If you want to do a doctoral dissertation about the importance of comedic timing, all you have to do is view this scene in Crackers, Collingwood and Big Deal. The first is lame, the second is humorous, the third is gold.

That's all I'll say. IMO, skip the leftovers, go straight to the original main course.

The film hails from 1959 -- 44 years ago -- and the comic strip upon which it was based was itself discontinued due to dwindling popularity in 1977 - 26 years ago. That means we now have a whole generation of movie-goers who have no idea who Lil Abner was. This flick ain't gonna help get those yung'uns better idea of what the strip was all about. Now I remember the strip and I grant you that Lil Abner was superb social and political satire for its Pre-Kennedy, less-jaded, Desilu time and place. But c'mon, that glacier has melted. Dogpatch satire carries about as much wallop today as your typical Father Knows Best punchline. And all of it, in this film, revolves around the Sputnik-launchin', shoe-bangin', Gary Powers tradin' Cold War. (Which itself ended 14 years ago.) Dated political satire aside, we should still be able to consider this movie for its staging, cinematographical, musical and acting merits shouldn't we? We could, if it had any. Granted it's very 'Broadway'. (I suppose that's either good or bad, depending on what you like.) But in my opinion the stagy sets are freakishly colored cartoon excrescences with pine trees spray-painted orange and the cardboard cabins tilted at weird angles. Pop a lid of LSD, put on a pair blue sunglasses and stroll through Disney's Toontown at sunrise and you'll get the same effect. As for the songs, they're timeless. You'll forget them in less time than it took the actors to sing them. Not one is memorable or has come close to entering the popular repetoire. Worst of all is the editing. After many of the dance numbers the actors literally freeze for 3 or 4 seconds as if they're waiting for audience applause. Can't anyone say 'Cut'? Occasionally a shot will appear to be filmed with a jumpy, grainy hand-held 16mm, only to be followed by a glorious Busby Berkely soundstage overhead, again producing an overall effect is that is three parts psychedelic and one part bad tequila hangover. That said, the movie does have two merits: 1) The actors really do look like their cartoon counterparts. 2) Julie Newmar at her most stupefying as Stupefying Jones. But don't let those two charms lure you into making the mistake of watching this movie unless you're already stoopified. If you are, turn the volume down, turn the Pink Floyd up and have at it.

Although my title hints otherwise, I rather liked this movie. A clever play on the fantasy of "if only I could go back in time, I'd do things differently" wish. The guy here does go back in time and things don't work out the way he wants.

Anyway, the fatal flaw involves the casting. IMHO, when casting romantic comedies involving love triangles, casting directors need to follow the rule of HOTTEST ONE WINS when choosing actors/actresses to play off each other. In other words if a guy has to choose between two girls and the script calls for him to end up happy with one of those two, cast the hottest actress in that role. Same goes for guys. Otherwise, the audience will never believe the actor's choice. For example, consider John Cusack's High Fidelity. Faced with several hotties to choose from, Cusack goes back to the mousey blonde (whose name escapes me) and I was a bit sorry for him.

Anyway, this movie obeys the rule of hotness first, but to its detriment. When Henshall's Bukowski spots Penelope Cruz's Louise in movie, it's game set match for Lena Headey's Sylvia (herself a stunning brunette) as far as we're concerned. There's no way we believe he's ever going back to Headey.

That said, I liked it and would recommend it.

I know, I know ... that's quite a bold assertion to attach to a movie with no violence, no gore and practically no swearing. Yet horrify this film does and that's why it's so beautifully brilliant. It will absolutely chill your blood because it's about the thoughts and deeds of a character (Chad) who is so evil that he is revolting to watch, repugnant to contemplate, yet we can't tear our eyes away from the screen. Messirs LaBute and Eckhart show us every pustulent boil on this man's psychological behind and they do so in such a familiar way that we soon come to realize that we all know Chad. We've met him. Chads walk among us everywhere we go. Perhaps you work with him or went to school with him... hell, you may even be married to him.

Most of my friends think that Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter is the most evil movie villain ever created. While he's a baddie allright, my vote goes to Eckhart's Chad. Put the two together and I think Chad would eat Hannibal for lunch and let his little ones chew on the bones-o's.

This film is an absolute must see. 10 out of 10. And if it doesn't creep you out enough for one night, rent it and watch it back to back with LaBute's equally fine and doubly disturbing "Your Friends and Neighbors".