Reviews

First of all, I admit this is not really a review of "Vanished". I have not seen it. But I do want to comment on the real-life episode that reportedly inspired the novel on which "Vanished" is based: About 4 weeks prior to the 1964 presidential election, Lyndon Johnson's chief-of-staff -- a 46-year-old husband and father of six named Walter Jenkins -- was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct following an incident in the men's bathroom of a YMCA located in Washington, DC. Jenkins had worked for LBJ since 1939 and had been his top administrative aide since 1945. It later emerged that Jenkins had been involved in a similar incident in January 1959 (while Johnson was Senate Majority Leader) but that had been covered up somehow.

In 1964, homosexuality was still such a taboo subject in American society that the media simply did not discuss the matter for about 7 days following the arrest, even though the reporters knew about it. Finally, after a week, the story "broke", even though most public discussion took place without mentioning the word "homosexuality".

Johnson's Republican opponent, Senator Goldwater of Arizona, actually knew Jenkins from their service in the Air Force Reserves and his comments were very restrained. Goldwater's VP-nominee, an obscure Congressman from Buffalo NY, was a bit less subtle, but even so the whole matter received a tiny fraction of the attention it would have received in later years. (Imagine if George W. Bush's chief-of-staff had been arrested for same-sex solicitation a month prior to the 2004 election. That would not have been simply "the lead" story in the national media, it would have been virtually THE ONLY story.)

The author Fletcher Knebel published the novel "Vanished" in 1968, about 3-4 years after the Jenkins episode, and then the TV-movie was originally aired in March 1971. So the movie was not -- as another reviewer wrote -- "filmed during the height of the Watergate scandal", which I think most people would place 2-3 years later.

(Spoliers!) Some other reviews have described this pilot episode as lasting 2-hours, but that is the syndicated version which was split into two hour-long episodes. In fact, the pilot lasts 73 minutes including closing credits.

The performances are all solid, but as someone else said, there are a few gaping plot-holes (exactly how Mrs. Elias found Nick Butler is unexplained, as is her motivation for sending him to medical school. And how did she and Jerry Grimes ever make a connection? they don't appear to have too much in common. And where exactly did Jim and Sara find that cement truck, anyway?). I would tend to chalk these unsolved-mysteries up to poor editing, as Rockford Files remains one of the best-*written* series ever. But nonetheless, they do detract from the effectiveness of the episode.

Noah Beery later made the "Rocky Rockford" role his own, but there's no need to disparage Robert Donley's performance here.

It's easy to see how Lindsay Wagner became one of the TV's biggest stars of that era -- really, she was just stunning. On the Season-One DVD, there is a bonus interview with Garner in which he expresses regret that Wagner's character wasn't included in more episodes. It seems clear that she was intended to be a recurring character, but it just never happened.

The action scenes are standard-mid-70s. When Rockford shoots a small-craft plane out of the air with a snub-nosed revolver... well, obviously that's not terribly realistic. The fight in the men's room is clever. (How strange, in 2011, to hear the good guy use the word "queer" in a disparaging way. That -- to say the very least -- would never happen today!)

The humor, the vaguely anti-establishment worldview, the LA scenery (plus some Vegas, too) -- it's all there.

I know, I know: *Another* sweet-innocent girlfriend/wife/ex-girlfriend/ex-wife/whatever is terrorized by her crazy-psychotic boyfriend/husband/ex-boyfriend/ex-husband/whatever. Yes, the concept is one we've been told about thousands of times (at least, it seems that way) before.

But I promise, out of the whole bunch, THIS ONE really is worth watching if you're into that sort of thing. I saw it when it came on TV in 1985. Had nightmares about it for months. I confess, I had forgotten who was in the cast until looking it up here on IMDb, but it's no surprise that Michael Biehn has gone on to have such a successful TV career. And who woud have thought Cloris Leachman -- one of the great comediennes -- would have a performance like this in her? Simply chilling from start to finish.

As they used to say on "Dragnet", the names were changed to protect the innocent. But this is "based on a true story" that occurred in the 1970s. The book (same title as the movie), published in 1982 by the Tucson AZ prosecutor named William Randolph Stevens, is available on amazon.

This movie should not be confused with the campier, more fictionalized sequel from 1991, starring Harry Hamlin and Joanna Kerns, and titled "Deadly Intentions... Again?" DIA is not without its own appeal, but the original is the true classic worth seeking out.

Just saw it earlier this evening on ABC television. And really, it is one of those gentle pleasures in life that is just as wonderful as I (a small child in the 1970s) remembered it. Nothing put in that should have been left out, nothing left out that should have been put in. Simply pure joy from start to finish. The likeness of Mr. Astaire is a delightful bonus.

I took a moment to read some of the other reviews posted in years past, and was intrigued by the reviewer who noted the subtle parallels between the Burgermeister's attempt to ban toys with the Hitlerite attempt to ban Jewish-influence from the life of Germany in the 1930s. That is a perceptive point, one that had eluded me even as an adult. Thankfully, this "lesson" is woven into the overall story so skillfully that it will not take away from a child's enjoyment.

Thirteen years before it was filmed as a TV-movie, "The Final Days" was the title of a bestselling book, whose 1976 publication "just happened" to coincide with the cinematic release of "All the President's Men" (based on an earlier book by the same authors). The Final Days book was noted for its complete reliance on anonymous sources, and for its witheringly negative portrait of Nixon and his personality, even including humiliating details about the Nixons' marriage. Shortly after it was published, Pat Nixon determined to read the book (against her husband's advice), and suffered a stroke within a day or two after she started on it. She was in hospital for about a month. All in all, TFD was probably the most sadistic literary attack ever leveled on a living ex-President up to that time.

With all that background, it seems very unlikely to me that Nixon, personally, sat through the TV-movie version of "The Final Days" when it came out in 1989. My guess is that he had one or more staff aides watch it; possibly Tricia/Julie and/or their husbands, but that he himself couldn't bear the thought of it. But who knows for sure. Nixon's office put out a press release at the time, saying that sponsor AT&T should change its slogan to "Reach Out and Smear Someone", which (IMO) was rather clever.

The movie itself was highly praised by William F. Buckley, Jr., who specifically singled out the performance of Lane Smith as impeccable. Despite misgivings about the source-material, I watched it (I think it was broadcast on ABC, if I remember correctly) and was mesmerized. The whole show was simply brilliant from start to finish. Smith's performance as Nixon is, indeed, flawless, and the overall atmosphere of the last 15 months of the Nixon White House was nicely judged, in my view. "The Final Days" is absolutely one of the small handful of TV- movies with an abundance of dramatic power and credibility, and with the ability to withstand repeated viewings.

The Watergate Affair, of course, is simply too complex of a story to be dealt with adequately in this format, so people who do not already know the ins-and-outs of that scandal should know that this is not the place to learn about it, except in very basic outline. But if the movie paints Watergate with (necessarily) broad strokes, at least those strokes were true, in my recollection.

A couple of minor details that seemed off-key: The Washington Post newspaper was renamed as the "Washington Herald" or something like that. I'd like to know why that change was made. Also, I have no complaint with David Ogden Stiers as a performer. But there's just nothing about the man -- in appearance or personality -- that resembles Alexander Haig. A curious casting decision.

A harsh opinion, but it's not mine. Rather, it's the opinion of Tony Hendra (Ian Faith in "Spinal Tap"), who is credited as a writer on all of the 26 Season-One episodes of Hugh Hefner's PAD that were broadcast in 1969.

Hendra published that opinion in the "LIVES" column of The New York Times Magazine (issue of Sunday 4th July 2004). The column, titled "The Personal is Political," is mostly about Hendra's friendship with the late actress Diana Sands, whom he met at one of PAD's post-show parties. Sands -- then 34/35 yrs. old -- already had some very impressive Broadway credentials to her name, and asked Hendra if he would rework one of her stage shows into a movie script. As Hendra writes, "I leapt at the opportunity to write something weightier than intros for a talent-free egomaniac." (I wonder, to whom could he possibly be referring? LOL)

As for the show, I'm curious why it didn't last longer (some say it was unable to get picked up for syndication in "conservative" parts of the country). But be that as it may, Playboy was still in its "cool" phase in 1970 when the show ceased production. The monthly magazine was still scoring A-List interviews, and the Playboy "lifestyle" was still being promoted in movies like Diamonds Are Forever (1971). A far, far cry from today.

I loved the novel and wanted so much to love the movie, too. And it does have some lovable parts. But all-in-all, I am sorry to say, the movie is let down by (1) the incredibly syrupy portrait (diabetics beware) of the Cherokee; (2) the ponderous tones of the narrator (Little Tree as an adult looking back, much like John Boy on "The Waltons"); and (3) the much-too-broad portrayals of the white characters (James Cromwell aside), ranging from despicable to oblivious. Watch out in particular for some hardcore stereotypes when the Preacher gets wound up in the little church, when the Politician stops by and makes a speech about the "Jews and the Catholics," and when Little Tree encounters a trio of white "lawmen" in the woods.

Left totally unexplained is why -- if, as the story implies, the deck is perpetually stacked for the white, against the Cherokee -- a 1/4-Cherokee child would be taken from his white relatives (against their wishes), and given to the Cherokee side of the family. A quite curious omission for a story in which the Cherokee/white distinction is a central -- in some ways, THE central -- theme. Passed over in similar silence is why -- if the white-man's church is such a festering sore of hypocrisy and hysteria (and it is definitely portrayed that way, with all the subtlety of the Three Stooges) -- Little Tree's grandparents (and Willow John) choose to attend it, much less why they would want the young boy himself exposed to it at such a formative age (the ninth year of his life).

It is quite improbable, bordering on incredible, that a 1/4 Cherokee child, born in rural east-Tennessee of 1927, would not have been given a name at least partly "American" (either first, middle, or last). Yet that is the necessary implication of the scene in which the Indian School headmaster peremptorily strips Little Tree of his "Indian name" and pronounces his new, "American name" to be Joshua. Otherwise, he could have reclaimed the "American name" he had prior to, or in addition to, Little Tree. At any rate, the audience is left to sort this out on its own.

I know what I have said up til now is quite harsh, so let me add that the performances by James Cromwell, Graham Greene, and Tantoo Cardinal are all outstanding. The scenes of the mountain-type men gathered in Jenkins' Store in "the settlement" are nicely played, as are the domestic scenes in and around the grandparents' cabin in the hills. The music and scenery are beautiful, and finally the the child-actor Joseph Ashton is splendid in the title role. He was apparently 10 years old at time of filming, and his performance is thoroughly credible from start to finish.

The viewer's interest in the movie probably depends on its interest in G. Gordon Liddy. As the comments from Zontar and Sartrejp indicate, Liddy is the sort of man who provokes interest even from people who hate him.

**There is nothing in the movie or in the book or anywhere else to support Zontar's claim that Liddy is or ever was "Hitler loving." That's just a flat-out lie. The bit about Liddy being "constitution hating" is a closer call, though ultimately it doesn't hold water, either. But even if both claims were 100% true, what would that have to do with the picture? **Sartrejp writes: "Not sure why, but I guess the summertime soldiers needed an epic flick." Yeah, what a mystery. Possible explanations: the book was a huge bestseller in 1980-81. Bestsellers are prime material for TV/movies. And surviving 4 1/2 years in different prisons is the sort of life-altering experience that most people will never get any closer to than a TV-show... Nah, can't be that simple, can it? **"He sure did have it tough: just shout "God, flag, country" & boom! you're in law enforcement." Yeah, Fordham Law School? piece of cake. Army Basic Training at Ft. Bliss? Hell, any pansy could make it through that. FBI Agent at 27, and Head of the Washington DC Field Office at age 30? Slacker. /sarcasm.

**"So then, were we supposed to feel sorry that Liddy made enemies every time he broke the law?" No. But if you actually took the time to watch the movie (and nothing in your comment really indicates that you did), you might have noticed that 4 1/2 yrs in prison -- especially the particular prisons that Liddy was held in -- is something that many other men have not survived.

**"Some woosies make careers outta being tough guys: Liddy & Conrad were two." Survive a couple of years in a rat-infested prison where you're part of a <5% ethnic minority, then you'll have an opinion on the subject that's worth listening to.

Spiritual awakenings and conversions are probably the most difficult subjects to effectively portray on screen. And much as I have enjoyed many of Dean Jones' performances down through the years, I can't say that he made Colson's conversion dramatically credible to me. I realize that this movie was not intended to tell the story of Watergate, yet in all honesty this chapter of Colson's life really doesn't make any sense except in the context of Watergate.

The movie's heart is in the right place but when it's all said and done, that's not enough reason to spend two hours of your life watching mediocrity.

I had to laugh at the comment from 2002 which seemed to say that (1) Colson's pre-Christian life was sleazy, so (2) therefore, his post-conversion life was not to be taken seriously. Our correspondent from Maine could not have missed the point any more completely than that. But for someone who evidently despises the "Born Again bunch" I suppose it is not surprising.

The review above said this movie made good use of its resources, and I agree with that. The boat-chase-scene was very ambitious for 1932, and the early fight-scene between Sholto and Morstan seems more intense and realistic than similar efforts from that time-period.

Having watched the DVD version just last night, I am sorry to say that understanding the audio-- at least in certain scenes-- takes a good deal of effort. Perhaps British audiences can pick up some of the words more clearly, but the recording technology was just so primitive compared to our time... oh, well. Let's just say I've never felt a keener need for sub-titles with an English-language movie.

Compared to Doyle's novel, there are some important plot-changes. Also, when you consider how closely identified the Holmes/Watson duo is with the late-Victorian era, it really is a bit jarring to see them in a 1932 setting.

Just kidding (As if anyone could not figure out-- whether they've seen the movie or not-- how it will turn out).

Like one of the other people who commented above, I was a kid (6) when this movie came out, and for some reason this is one of the movies that sticks in my mind along with Gus, Boatniks, and the '66 Batman, when I think back on the movies I saw at that age. So Shaggy DA has a built-in nostalgia factor as far as I'm concerned, and maybe for others my age, but anyone else would probably be bored to tears. The pie-fight had a little spark of energy, but watching this now mainly just serves to remind what low standards "family entertainment" had in the 70s. It's really amazing, today, to look back on this kind of stuff-- Shaggy DA, Pete's Dragon, that "Goin Cocoanuts" thing the Osmonds put out-- and think: Good Lord, was that really the best they could do?

The movie makes excellent use of its location-filming (Baton Rouge, New Orleans, couple of small towns in between like Donaldsonville). The story is set in a fictional parish of "Le Salle" which is not to be confused with the real-life Parish of La Salle, located in northern part of Louisiana b/w Alexandria and Monroe...

As far as the plot goes, it does have some interesting twists, and the cast is quite strong (Thornton, Devane, Ward, et al.)... But when it's all said and done, you look back and realize that *All* of the homosexual, transsexual, crossdresser, transgender, characters are honest, ethically upright, and decent to others. *All* of the sneaky, dishonest, corrupt characters are hetero. The killer is a male, hetero-pervert who peeks at women as they use the bathroom.

So if that sounds like real-life to you, the movie should be a real treat...